A. T. Jones (1888)_Abiding-Sabbath and the Lords Day

8/8/2019 A. T. Jones (1888)_Abiding-Sabbath and the Lords Day

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-t-jones-1888abiding-sabbath-and-the-lords-day 1/128

[1]

THE

"ABIDING SABBATH"

AND THE "LORD'S DAY."



www.maranathamedia.com

[2]

THE

"ABIDING SABBATH"

AND THE

"LORD'S DAY."

THE

$500 AND $1000 PRIZE ESSAYS.

A REVIEW

BYALONZO T. JONES.

OAKLAND, CAL.:PACIFIC PRESS PUBLISHING HOUSE.

1888.



[3]

THE $500 PRIZE ESSAY.




[7]

"THE ABIDING SABBATH."

CHAPTER I.

INSTITUTION OF THE SABBATH.

The late Hon. Richard Fletcher, of Boston, Mass., by his

last will, established in charge of the trustees of DartmouthCollege, "a fund from the income of which they were tooffer, once in two years, a prize of $500 for the essay bestadapted" to counteract "the numerous and powerfulinfluences constantly active in drawing professedChristians into fatal conformity with the world, both inspirit and practice." The fifth time of offering the prize fell

in 1883. Accordingly the trustees of the fund and of Dartmouth College selected as the "specific theme" of thedesired essay, "The Perpetual Obligation of the Lord'sDay," and offered the five-hundred-dollar prize for the best.The committee of award was composed of the followinggentlemen: "Prof. William Thompson, D. D., Prof.Llewellyn Pratt, D. D., and Rev. George M. Stone, D. D.,all of Hartford, Conn." This committee, "after a careful andthorough examination," awarded the prize to an essaywhich proved to have [8] been written by the Rev.George Elliott, of West Union, Iowa. The essay, entitled"The Abiding Sabbath," appeared in 1884, and was issuedfrom the press of the American Tract Society in the winterof 1884-85, in the form of a book of two hundred andeighty pages.

There is no use in disputing the fact that the Sundayquestion is fast becoming the leading question of the day.Large conventions of ministers are held solely to secure itsenforced observance by the civil power; the W. C. T. U.works it up all over the United States; Prohibition



Conventions put it in their platforms; Legislatures, bothState and National, from beginning to end of their sessionsare petitioned for the enactment of stringent laws in itsbehalf; the religious papers of the country lift up one united

cry that it must and shall be preserved; politicalconventions are "worked" and Legislatures are "lobbied" inthe interests of the Sunday; Knights of Labor, working-men's unions, and Socialists call loudly for laws enforcingits observance; and colleges and religious publicationsocieties offer large prize essays for arguments to sustain it.All these things are significant and worthy of attention.

"The Abiding Sabbath" being one of the latest as well asone of the most authoritative discussions of the question asto why Sunday should be kept, we ask the attention of thereader while we examine the main points of the argument.

[9] The book is divided into three parts,—"Sabbath of

Nature," "Sabbath of the Law," and "Sabbath of

Redemption." We shall quote quite largely from the firsttwo parts, and that without argument, there being in fact noroom for argument between us, because the author of "TheAbiding Sabbath," in these two parts, proves to perfectionthe perpetual obligation of the seventh day as the Sabbath,and that is exactly what we believe. We ask our readers tostudy carefully his argument on the "Sabbath of Nature"and the "Sabbath of the Law," which we quote, (1) becauseit is excellent reading, and (2) because we want them to seeclearly, by what curious freaks of logic it is, that afterabsolutely demonstrating the perpetual obligation of theseventh day, another day entirely is to be observed. He saysmost truly:—

"The Sabbath is an institution as old as the completion of the world. . . . It shares with marriage the glory of being the

sole relics saved to the fallen race from their lost paradise.One is the foundation of the family, and consequently of the State; the other is equally necessary to worship and thechurch. These two fair and fragrant roses man bore withhim from the blighted bliss of Eden.




"It is not, however, the mere fact of age that lendssacredness to these institutions; for years alone cannot giveconsecration or compel regard to anything which does notpossess in itself some inherent sanctity and dignity. It is in

the circumstances of its first institution, and in its essentialcharacter, that we must hope [10] to discover thenecessity and holiness of the Sabbath day.

"'God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, becausethat in it he had rested from all his work which God createdand made.' Gen.2:3. Such is the sublimely simplestatement which forms the last strain of that magnificent

hymn of creation which is our only glimpse into thebeginning of things. It is surely consistent with soundcommon sense and sound interpretation to see in thesewords much more than a mere anticipation of the theocraticSabbath of Israel. It seems absurd to express in words whatsome have implied in their reasonings on this passage:'God rested on the seventh day; therefore 2,500 years

afterwards he blessed and sanctified it.' The same form of language is used to describe what took place on the seventhday as in relating what took place in the six preceding days.

"It is certain that a first reading of this passage conveysto the mind the idea that the sanctification of the Sabbath asa day of rest took place at the very close of the creativeweek. That such was the case would probably never havebeen denied, if the denial had not been necessary to supporta peculiar view. Doubt in regard to this prolepticinterpretation is sustained by the recent discovery of mention of a day of rest in the Assyrian account of creation,which is believed to antedate Moses by nearly six hundredyears, and the further discovery of the actual observance of a Sabbath in Babylonia long before the time of [11] theMosaic institution. Is not God saving his facts, in Egyptian

tombs, on Assyrian bricks, and in all historic remainseverywhere, that, at every crisis of his truth, when even themouths of believers are silenced by the tumult of doubt, thevery 'stones' may 'cry out'? . . .

"A special authority attaches itself to the primitive



revelation. Whatever critical opinions may assertconcerning the early history of the world, to the Christianthe testimony of Jesus Christ remains in force to the highobligation of the Edenic law. In reproving the corruptions

of the marriage relation which had arisen under the Mosaiccode, he reverts to the primitive law: 'From the beginningit was not so.' That is to say, the law of the beginning issupreme. Whatever institutions were given to man thenwere given for all time. There is given thus to marriage, andto its related institution, the Sabbath, a permanent characterand authority which transcend the Hebrew legislation in

their universal and binding force. Those elements of truthwhich were given to the infant race, are the possession of humanity, and not of the Jew alone; they are the alphabet of all the growing knowledge of man, not to be forgotten asthe world grows old, but to be borne with him in all hiswanderings, to last through all changes, and be his guide upthose rugged steeps by which he must climb to the lofty

summits of his nobler destiny."Not to a single race, but to man; not to man alone, butto the whole creation; not to the created [12] thingsalone, but to the Creator himself, came the benediction of the first Sabbath. Its significance extends beyond thenarrow limits of Judaism, to all races, and perhaps to allworlds. It is a law spoken not simply through the lawgiverof a chosen people, but declared in the presence of afinished heaven and earth. The declaration in Genesisfurnishes the best commentary on the saying of Jesus: 'TheSabbath was made for man.' For man, universal humanity,it was given with its benediction.

"The reason of the institution of the Sabbath is onewhich possesses an unchanging interest and importance toall mankind. The theme of the creation is not peculiar to

Israel, nor is worship of the Creator confined to the childrenof Abraham. The primary article of every religious creed,and the foundation of all true religion, is faith in one God asthe Maker of all things. Against atheism, which denies theexistence of a personal God; against materialism, which




denies that this visible universe has its roots in the unseen;and against secularism, which denies the need of worship,the Sabbath is therefore an eternal witness. It symbolicallycommemorates that creative power which spoke all things

into being, the wisdom which ordered their adaptations andharmony, and the love which made, as well as pronounced,all 'very good.' It is set as the perpetual guardian of managainst that spiritual infirmity which has everywhere ledhim to a denial of the God who made him, or to thedegradation of that God into a creature made with his ownhands."

[13] Further he says:—"While the reason remains, the law remains. The reason

of the Sabbath is to be found in the fact of creation; it isGod's one monument set in human history to that greatevent; and so long as the truth of creation and theknowledge of a Creator have any value to human thought,

any authority over the human conscience, or make anyappeal to human affections, so long the law and theinstitution of the Sabbath will abide with lasting instructionand undiminished obligation.

"God 'rested the seventh day from all his work which hehad made.' Such is the record, declared in the beginning,embodied in the decalogue, and confirmed by the epistle tothe Hebrews. It is a statement not to be easily understood atthe first glance 'Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard,that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the endsof the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary?' Isa. 40:28. If heis never weary how can we say of him that he rests? . . .God is a Spirit, and the only rest which he can know is thatsupreme repose which only the Spirit can know—in thefulfillment of his purpose and the completeness as well as

completion of his work. Just as, in the solemn pausesbetween the creative days, he pronounced his creatures'very good,' so did he rejoice over the finishing of his work,resting in the perfect satisfaction of an accomplished plan;not to restore his wasted energy, as man rests, but to signify



that in the coming of man the creative idea has found [14] its consummation and crown. Such is the rest possible to apurely spiritual nature—the rest of a completed work. . . .

"There is a still deeper sense in which the example of

Deity reveals this obligation. Suppose the question to beasked, How can we know that any precept is moral in itsmeaning and authority, and not simply a positive andarbitrary command? What better answer could be given tothis inquiry than to say that a moral precept must have theground of its existence in the nature of God? Our highestconception of the moral law is to regard it as the transcript

of his nature. . . . No more perfect vindication of the moralcharacter of a law can be given than to show that it is a ruleof the divine conduct; that it has been imposed upon hisown activity by that infinite Will which is the supremeauthority both in the physical and moral government of theuniverse. That law to which the Creator submits his ownbeing must be of absolute binding force upon every

creature made in his image. Such is the law of the Sabbath.'God rested the seventh day,' and by so doing has given tothe law of the Sabbath the highest and strongest sanctionpossible even to Deity. In no conceivable way could theAlmighty so perfectly and with such unchallengeableauthority declare, not simply his will in a positiveinstitution, but the essentially moral character of theprecept, as by revealing his own self-subjection to the rulewhich he imposes on his creatures. . . . Its obligation isaddressed, not to man's physical [15] nature alone, but toman as a spiritual being, made in the image of God; it islaid, not only on his bodily powers and naturalunderstanding, but upon his moral reason as right, and uponhis conscience as duty. It is therefore bounded by no limitsof time, place, or circumstance, but is of universal and

perpetual authority."Then he closes Chapter I of his book with the following

most just conclusion:—"The Sabbath is therefore shown to be given in the

beginning to all men; to have the lofty sanction of the




example of God; to be rooted in the eternal world; to be thewitness of the most important truths possible for man toknow; to be a blessing to man's nature; to inclose a duty of worship to God. By all these revealings which are given by

the institution at its first ordainment, we are justified inbelieving that it has a moral meaning within it, and imposesupon all races and generations of men an unchanging andunrelaxed obligation of dutiful observance."

We have quoted more than half of the whole firstchapter; but we have no apology to make. We honestlythank Mr. Elliott that he has given us so masterly a

demonstration of the perpetual and universal obligation of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord. Again we ask the reader to study it carefully; for it is a vindication of principles that are eternal, and that no ingenuity of man canundermine.



[16]

CHAPTER II.

SABBATH OF THE LAW.

As a basis for the further notice of "The AbidingSabbath," we shall here give some extracts from theauthor's discussion of the fourth commandment, showingthe universal and everlasting obligation of the seventh dayas the Sabbath of the Lord. He says:—

"The giving of the law at Sinai is the loftiest landmark inthe history of Israel. It is the beginning of their civil andreligious polity. From that moment Israel became the nationof Jehovah, the nation of the law, the leader among thenations of the earth in the search after a positiverighteousness. That the Sabbath is a part of that code, hastherefore a meaning not for the Hebrew alone, but for the

whole race of mankind."Everywhere in the sacred writings of the Hebrews theyare reminded that they are the people peculiarly guided byProvidence. Historian, psalmist, and prophet never tire inrecounting the marvelous interpositions of Jehovah inbehalf of his chosen people. And this thought is the key-note to the decalogue, 'I am the Lord thy God, which havebrought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage' [17] (Ex. 20:2), is the introduction to the law.When therefore the Sabbath is introduced into thedecalogue, while its old significance as a testimony of creation is not lost, but especially recalled, it becomes,beside, a monument of the divine Providence whoseparticular manifestations Israel, among the nations, hasmost largely experienced. The Sabbath of the law is the

Sabbath of Providence."The declaration on Sinai is perhaps the strongest

attestation which the Sabbatic ordinance has received. It ishenceforth based upon an express command of Godhimself, is given in circumstances of the most impressive





himself sounded forth 'with a great voice' the awfulsentences of this divine law, to which in the same way 'headded no more.' Deut. 5:22. Not by the mouth of an angelor prophet came this sublimest code of morals, but the

words were formed in air by the power of the Eternalhimself. And when it was to be recorded, no human scribetook down the sacred utterances; they were en- [19] graved by no angel hand; but with his own finger heinscribed on tables of stone, whose preparation, in the firstinstance, was 'the work of God,' the words of his will. Ex.31:18; 32:16; 34:1, 4, 28.

"The law declared by his own mouth and indited by hisown hand was finally placed in the ark of the covenant,underneath the mercy-seat, where sprinkled blood mightatone for its violation; . . and beneath the flamingmanifestation of the very presence of the Almighty, theglory of the shekinah; circumstances signifying forever thedivine source of this law and the divine solicitude that it

should be obeyed. This superior solemnity and majesty of announcement and conservation distinguish the decalogueabove all other laws given to man, and separate it widelyfrom the civil polity and ritual afterwards given by the handof Moses. These latter are written by no almighty fingerand spoken to the people by no divine voice; for these it issufficient that Moses hear and record them.

"Of the law thus impressively given, the fourthcommandment forms a part. Amid the same cloud of glory,the same thunders and lightnings, uttered by the same dreadvoice of the Infinite One, and graven by his finger, cameforth these words as well: 'Remember the Sabbath day tokeep it holy.' It is impossible, in view of these facts, to classthe Sabbath with the ceremonial institutions of Israel. Bythe sacred seal of the divine lip and finger, it has been

raised far above those perishing rites. In other words, [20] it belongs to that moral law which Paul calls 'holy, and just,and good' (Rom. 7:12), and not that ritual law of whichPeter declares, 'Neither our fathers nor we were able tobear' it. Acts. 15:10.




"Nothing can be found in the form of words in which thefourth commandment is expressed which indicates that it isless universal in its obligation or less absolute in itsauthority than the other nine with which it is associated. . . .

But it is sometimes claimed that this is simply a Mosaicinstitute, and therefore of transient force; that this has not,like the others, an inward reason which appeals to theconscience; that it is, in short, not a moral but a positiveprecept. . .

"The proof which would exclude this commandmentfrom the throne of moral authority on which the others are

seated should amount to demonstration. . . . The distinctioncannot be maintained between this commandment and theremainder of the decalogue. The prohibition of image-worship is not deemed essential by either Roman or Greek Christianity; but the more spiritual mind of Protestantismcan see that this law is absolutely necessary to guard a trulyspiritual conception of Deity. So, many excellent Christians

have failed to discern the moral necessity of the Sabbath.Clearer insight will reveal that all the laws of the first tableare guarded by this institution, as all in the second table areenforced by the tenth, 'Thou shalt not covet.' . . .

"The moral authority of the decalogue did not begin withits announcement on Sinai. Its precepts [21] had beenknown and practised through all the patriarchal ages.Murder was condemned in Cain, and dishonor of parents inHam. To Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had come theknowledge of one God, and the last had exhorted hischildren against image-worship. Gen. 35:2. Theft,falsehood, and adultery are all denounced by the record of pre-Mosaic times. As a declaration of the eternal andunchanging moral law its binding force did not begin withits announcement at Horeb, but dated from the beginning of

things, and for the same reason will endure until theconsummation of all things. Nor was it given to Israelalone. The Gentiles 'show the work of the law written intheir hearts.' Rom. 2:14, 15.

"Jesus Christ has confirmed its obligation: 'If thou wilt



center into life, keep the commandments.' Matt. 19:17. Hisgreat generalization of the whole into the double duty of love to God and man is a further confirmation of thepersistence of its ethical force. James writes: 'Whosoever

shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he isguilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, saidalso, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.' James2:10, 11. It is impossible to suppose that the apostle has notin mind the whole decalogue, and that he does not equallyaffirm the profaner of the Sabbath to be a violator of the

whole law. In a statement of such gravity he must havespecified the exception if any existed. It is worthy of ournotice that he bases the [22] sanctity of each commandon the fact that each was spoken by one God. But the lawof the Sabbath was as surely uttered by the voice of Jehovah as any other precept of the ten. If the 'ten words' of Sinai live to-day, imposing an unrelaxed obligation upon all

mankind, as is testified both by the nature of the legislationand by the authority of Jesus and his apostles, the Sabbathshares their perpetuity, both of existence and obligation. . . .

"In the law spoken by the mouth of God himself andwritten by his own finger, the transcript of his will, thereasons assigned for the institution of the Sabbath are suchas appeal, not to Israel alone, but to man as man. TheSabbath recalls a fact of universal interest, the creation of the world, and is based on a process in the nature of God,who in some ineffable way 'rested on the seventh day.' Theideas connected with the Sabbath in the fourthcommandment are thus of the most permanent anduniversal meaning. The institution, in the light of thereasons assigned, is as wide as the creation and as eternal asthe Creator.

"Instituted at the creation by the example of the Creator,its obligation extends to every creature. It is inconceivable,on any theory of inspiration, that any narrowerinterpretation is to be given to this command. If language isto have any meaning at all, the Sabbath of the fourth




commandment is not simply an Israelitish, but a humaninstitution. As it answers a universal need, so is it enforcedby a uni- [23] versal reason, being supported by the onlystate of facts that could create a perpetual institute,—the

law of the beginning. . . ."These considerations cannot be treated with too much

gravity. Long should pause the erring hand of man before itdares to chip away with the chisel of human reasonings onesingle word graven on the enduring tables by the hand of the infinite God. What is proposed? To make an erasure ina Heaven-born code; to expunge one article from the

recorded will of the Eternal! Is the eternal tablet of his lawto be defaced by a creature's hand? He who proposes suchan act should fortify himself by reasons as holy as God andas mighty as his power. None but consecrated hands couldtouch the ark of God; thrice holy should be the hands whichwould dare alter the testimony which lay within the ark.

"By the lasting authority of the whole decalogue, with

which the fourth commandment is inseparably connected,which is the embodiment of immutable moral law, and by

the very words used in framing the command , the Sabbathis shown to be an institution of absolute, universal, andunchanging obligation.

"Here may properly be inserted that prayer which theAnglican Church prescribes as a response to the recitationof each of the ten commandments: 'Lord, have mercy uponus, and incline our hearts to keep this law.'"

Amen! and, Amen! say we.



[24]

CHAPTER III.

SOME FIVE-HUNDRED-DOLLAR LOGIC.

It must be borne in mind that the book entitled "TheAbiding Sabbath" was written to prove "the perpetualobligation of the Lord's day;" and that by the term "Lord'sday," the author of the book means, in every instance, the

first day of the week. Therefore, "being interpreted," thebook, "The Abiding Sabbath," is an argument to prove theperpetual obligation of the first day of the week. It islikewise to be remembered that the trustees of DartmouthCollege paid the Fletcher prize of five hundred dollars forthe essay which composes the book "The AbidingSabbath." This certainly is tangible proof that those

trustees, and the Committee of Award appointed by them,considered that the object of the essay had beenaccomplished, and that thereby the perpetual obligation of the first day of the week had been proved. But we arecertain that any one who has read the two precedingchapters on this subject, will wonder how, in view of thearguments there used, the author can make it appear that thefirst day of the week is "the abiding Sabbath." Well, to tellin a few words what we shall abundantly demonstrate, hedoes it by directly contradicting every sound argu- [25]

ment that he has made, and every principle that he hasestablished.

In the first chapter of the book, from the scripture "Godblessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in ithe had rested from all his work which God created and

made" (Gen. 2:3), he proves the institution of the Sabbathat creation, and says: "Whatever institutions were given toman then, were given for all time."

And again: "'God rested the seventh day,' and by sodoing has given to the law of the Sabbath the highest and




strongest sanction possible, even to Deity. . . . It istherefore-bounded by no limits of time, place, orcircumstance, but is of universal and perpetual authority."

It was the seventh day upon which God rested from the

work of creation; it was the seventh day which he thenblessed; it was the seventh day which he then sanctified;and he says, "The seventh day is the Sabbath." Now if, asMr. Elliott says, this institution was given to man "for alltime," and that, too, "with the highest and strongestsanction possible even to Deity;" and if it is bounded "byno limits of time, place, or circumstance," how can it be

possible that the first day of the week is the abidingSabbath? It is clearly and absolutely impossible. The twothings cannot stand together. God did not rest the first dayof the week. He did not bless, nor did he sanctify, the firstday of the week. He has never called the first day of theweek the Sabbath; nor as such an [26] institution has heever given it any sanction of Deity, mush less has he ever

given it the "highest and strongest sanction possible even toDeity." Then upon no principle of truth can it ever be madeto appear that the first day of the week is the abidingSabbath.

Then in Part II, on the fourth commandment,— the"Sabbath of the Law,"—he says of the Sabbath thereingiven to Israel when God brought them out of Egypt: "Thefirst institution of religion given to the emancipated nationwas the very same with the first given to man" (p.110). Hesays that it has "a meaning not for the Hebrews alone, butfor the whole race of mankind;" that "the reason of thecommandment recalls the ordinance of creation;" that "theideas connected with the Sabbath in the fourthcommandment are thus of the most permanent anduniversal meaning;" and that "the institution, in the light of

the reasons assigned, is as wide as creation and as eternal

as the Creator " (pp. 114, 126).And yet into this commandment, which says as plainly

as language can speak, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God," Mr. Elliott proposes to read the first day



as "the abiding Sabbath."Before noticing his reasons for such a step, we would

repeat one of his own paragraphs:—"Long should pause the erring hand of man before it

dares to chip away with the chisel of human reasonings onesingle word graven on the enduring tables by the hand of the infinite God. What is proposed? [27] To make anerasure in a Heaven-born code; to expunge one article fromthe recorded will of the Eternal! Is the eternal tablet of hislaw to be defaced by a creature's hand? He who proposessuch an act should fortify himself by reasons as holy as God

and as mighty as his power . None but consecrated handscould touched the ark of God; thrice holy should be thehands which would dare to alter the testimony which laywithin the ark." —Pp. 128, 129.

And so say we.After proving that the ten commandments are of

universal and perpetual obligation, he discovers that the

decalogue "contains transient elements." He says:—"It may be freely admitted that the decalogue in the formin which it is stated, contains transient elements. These,however, are easily separable. For example, the promiseattached to the requirement of filial reverence, 'that thydays may be long upon the land which the Lord thy Godgiveth thee,' has a very evident reference to Israel alone,and is a promise of national perpetuity in possession of thepromised land."

But lo, just here he discovers that this is not a "transientelement," and that it has not "reference to Israel alone;" forhe continues in the very same paragraph:—

"Even this element is not entirely of limited application,however, for Paul quotes the commandment in his letter tothe Christians of Ephesus (Eph. 6:2), as 'the first . . . with

promise,' evidently understanding the covenant of long lifeto have a wider scope than simply the Hebrew nationality.[28] And it is clear that nothing can be imagined whichcould give more enduring stability to civil institutions thanthat law-abiding character which is based on respect for




superiors and obedience to their commands." —Pp. 120,

121.His proposition is that "the decalogue contains transient

elements." And to demonstrate his proposition, he produces

as an "example," a "transient element" which heimmediately proves is not a transient element at all. Thenwhat becomes of his proposition? Well, by every principleof common logic, it is a miserable failure. But by this new,high-priced kind, this five-hundred-dollar-prize logic, it is abrilliant success; for by it he accomplishes all that heintended when he started out; that is, that by it he might put

aside as a "transient element" the seventh day, and swinginto its place the seventh part of time. For after proving thathis example of a transient element is not a transient elementat all, he continues:—

"This serves to illustrate how we may regard thetemporal element in the law of the Sabbath. It does not bindus to the precise day, but to the seventh of our time."

To the trustees of Dartmouth College, and to theCommittee of Award which they appointed, and to theAmerican Tract Society, it may serve to illustrate such athing; but to anybody who loves truth, sound reasoning,and fair dealing, it only serves to illustrate the deplorableweakness of the cause in behalf of which resort has to bemade to such subterfuges.

[29] Besides this, his admission that the decalogue contains

transient elements is directly contrary to the argument thathe has already made on this very subject. On page 116, hehad already written of the ten commandments:—

"These statutes are therefore not simply commands orprecepts of God; for God may give commandments whichhave only a transient and local effect; they are in a

distinctive sense the word of God, an essential part of thatword which 'abideth'. . . . By the phrase 'the ten words,' aswell as in the general scope of Hebrew legislation, themoral law is fully distinguished from the civil andceremonial law. The first is an abiding statement of the



divine will; the last consists of transient ordinances havingbut a temporary and local meaning."

Yet directly in the face of this, he will have it freelyadmitted that the decalogue "contains transient elements."

Are there transient elements in the divine will? Can thatwhich abideth be transient? And if the decalogue containstransient elements, then wherein is it "fully distinguished"from the "civil and ceremonial law," which "consists of transient ordinances"? The genuine logic of his position is(1) the ceremonial law consists of transient ordinances; (2)the decalogue is fully distinguished from the ceremonial

law; (3) therefore the decalogue consists of nothingtransient. But with the aid of this five-hundred-dollar-prizelogic it is thus: The ceremonial law consists of transientordinances. The decalogue is fully distinguished from theceremonial law. There- [30] fore it may be freelyadmitted that the decalogue contains transient elements!!And so "with the ceremonial system vanished the Jewish

Sabbath," which he defines to be the seventh day (pp. 177,190). By one argument on these transient elements, hemanages to put away the precise seventh day, and to put inits place "the seventh of our time;" by another he is enabledto abolish the seventh of our time, as well as the preciseseventh day, by which he opens the way to insert in thecommandment the precise first day as the "abidingSabbath" and of "perpetual obligation."

Again we read:—"While the Sabbath of Israel had features which enforce

and illustrate the abiding Sabbath, it must not be forgottenthat it had a wholly distinct existence of its own. . . Mosesreally instituted something new, something different fromthe old patriarchal seventh day."—P. 134.

With this read the following:—

"The first institution of religion given to the emancipatednation was the very same with the first given to man." —P.

110.How the Sabbath of Israel could be the very same with

the first given to man, and yet have a wholly distinct




existence of its own; how it could be the "very same" withthe first given to man, and yet be "something new" 2500years afterward; how it could be something different fromthe old patriarchal seventh day, and yet in it there be "still

embodied the true Sabbath," we cannot possibly conceive;but per- [31] haps the genius that can discern in thedecalogue transient elements which it proves are nottransient at all, could also tell how all these things can be.

Just one more illustration of the wonderful feats that canbe performed by a prize essay. On page 135 he says:—

"In the Mosaic Sabbath, for the time of its endurance and

no longer, was embodied, for a particular people and noothers, this permanent institution which was ordained atcreation, and which lives now with more excellent glory inthe Lord's day."

That is to say: (1) In the Mosaic institution, "for thetime of its endurance [1522 years] and no longer," wasembodied an institution which is "rooted in the eternal

world" (p. 28), and which is as eternal as the Creator (p.126); (2) in the Mosaic institution, which was "for aparticular people and no others," was embodied aninstitution whose "unrelaxed obligation" extends to "everycreature," "to all races of earth and all ages of the world'shistory" (pp. 122, 124).

In other words, in an institution that was for a particularpeople and no others, for 1522 years and no longer , wasembodied an institution that is eternal, and for all races inall ages of the world's history.

Now we wish that Mr. Elliott, or some of those whowere concerned in paying the five-hundred-dollar prize forthis essay, would tell us how it were possible that aninstitution that is as eternal as the Creator could beembodied in one that was to endure for 1522 years and no

longer ; and how an institution that is of unre- [32] laxedobligation upon all races in all ages, could be embodied inone that was for a particular people and no others. Andwhen he has told us that, then we wish he wouldcondescend to inform us how in the Mosaic Sabbath there



could be embodied three such diverse elements as (1) the"permanent institution which was ordained at creation,"which was the seventh day; (2) "something new," which hesays was "not improbably a different day;" and (3) "the

institution which lives now with more excellent glory in theLord's day," which he says is the first day of the week.

We have not the most distant idea, however, that Mr.Elliott, or any one else, will ever explain any of thesethings. They cannot be explained. They are absolutecontradictions throughout. But by them he has paved theway by which he intends to bring in the first day of the

week as the abiding Sabbath, and they are a masterlyillustration of the methods by which that institution is madeto stand.




[33]

CHAPTER IV.

"THE SABBATH OF REDEMPTION."

"The Sabbath of Redemption" composes Part III of "TheAbiding Sabbath," and in it throughout the author stilldiligently pursues his course of systematic self-contradiction. The first division of this part is "TheTestimony of Jesus Christ" upon the subject of the Sabbath,

a few sentences of which we quote. He says:—"As already shown, the Sabbath contained moral

elements; it belonged not solely to Israel, but wassanctioned by the primitive revelation to the race, being thefirst article in the law of the beginning; it was a part of thatsublime code which by the mouth of the Eternal himself was spoken to his chosen people from the mountain of

God; its violation had been surrounded, in the Mosaiclegislation and in the prophetic instructions, with penalties,and its observance with blessings, such as could hardly beattached to a simple institution of ritual. The abidingSabbath, belonging to the moral law is therefore not

repealed or canceled by Jesus, but rather confirmed withnew uses, loftier meanings, and holier objects." —P. 159.

Then in speaking of the "false strictness" with which theJews has surrounded and obscured the real intent of theSabbath, and how Jesus swept this all away, he says:—

[34] "There is not in all this any hint of the abolition of the

Sabbath, or release from its obligations. The words of Jesusbecome meaningless when they are applied to anything butthe abuses and perversions of its purposes by the

Rabbinical schools. Had he desired to abolish it altogether,nothing would have been easier than to do so in terms. Hiswords are everywhere framed with the utmost care, andstrictly guarded against any construction which wouldinvolve a denial of the real sacredness of the day blessed by



the Creator and sanctioned by the moral law." —P. 163. Now the day blessed by the Creator is the seventh day;

for "God bless the seventh day" is the word of God, and"The seventh day is the Sabbath" is the declaration of God

in the moral law. Therefore we submit that as Christ'swords are "strictly guarded against any construction whichwould involve a denial of the real sacredness of the dayblessed by the Creator and sanctioned by the moral law,"then the word of Christ binds every man to the observanceof the seventh day, and forever debars any application of his teaching to any other than the seventh day; for God

never blessed any but the seventh day, and none other thanthe seventh day is sanctified, as the Sabbath, by the morallaw.

Again he says:—"Jesus confirms the Sabbath on its spiritual basis. 'The

Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath;therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.' . . .

Thus he at once rid it of all the false restrictions of Judaism,and, establishing it upon its primitive foundations, hebrought forth its [35] higher reason in the assertion of itsrelation to the well-being of man. 'The Sabbath was madefor man;' not for the Jew only, but for the whole race of mankind; not for one age alone, but for man universally,under every circumstance of time and place." —P. 165.

Then in another place Mr. Elliott says further:—"The declaration in Genesis furnishes the best

commentary on the saying of Jesus: 'The Sabbath wasmade for man.'" —P. 17 .

The "declaration in Genesis" is: "And on the seventhday God ended his work which he had made; and he restedon the seventh day from all his work which he had made.And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because

that in it he had rested from all his work which God createdand made." We agree perfectly with Mr. Elliott that that"furnishes the best commentary on the saying of Jesus," inMark 2:27. It is the Lord's own commentary on his ownword; it is his own explanation of his own statement.




Therefore when, by any statement in any way, Mr. Elliottor any one else attempts to bring the first day of the week into place as the Sabbath, it is simply doing violence to theword of God, and is in direct contradiction to the divine

commentary.Now in accordance with his scheme throughout, after

having, by every principle of logic, established theobligation of the seventh day as the Sabbath, he proceeds atonce to contradict it all. He says:—

"'The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.' This is anassertion by our Lord of his right to make such

modifications in the law of the Sabbath, and give [36] itsuch new adjustments as should to him seem best for thereligious culture of the race. As Lord of the Sabbath, hedoubtless had the power to set it entirely aside,—a powerwhich certainly he has nowhere exercised, either by himself or through his apostles. He had the right to change its day and alter or add to its meanings,—a right which he has

exercised in giving us the Lord's day, the ChristianSabbath, and in making it a monument of redemption aswell as of creation and providence. Because he is 'Lord of the Sabbath,' we can rightly call the Sabbath the Lord's day,and the Lord's day our Sabbath. That which he has assertedthat he had the power to do, we have the right to assume he

has done, and we have, moreover, the right to infer that thechange which came over the Sabbatic institutions in theearly Christian centuries was not without his will, but byhis authority and in fulfillment of his purpose." —Pp. 168,

169. Again:—"More subtly than Moses, yet as really as the lawgiver in

the wilderness, he was instituting a new Sabbath." —P. 172. Here are several points, upon each of which we wish to

dwell for a moment. We take the last one first: "Moresubtly than Moses, yet as really . . he was instituting a newSabbath." How subtly did Moses institute a new Sabbath?Why not at all, subtly or otherwise. Moses instituted noweekly Sabbath, either new or old. God spoke the word



from Heaven: "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lordthy God; in it thou shalt not do any work;" as Mr. Elliotthimself says, "Not by the mouth of angel or prophet camethis sublimest code of morals: but the words were [37]

formed in air by the power of the Eternal himself " (p. 117).But go back even beyond Sinai, to the Wilderness of Sin, atthe falling of the manna, nor yet there was it left to Mosesto mark the day that was the Sabbath, much less was itgiven to him to institute the Sabbath. Here, again, Mr.Elliott states the case precisely: "God himself provided thefeast in the wilderness which marked for them the weekly

recurrence of the holy day. . . . The connection of themiraculous supply of food with the seventh day wascertainly calculated to strongly impress the Sabbath uponthe thoughts and imaginations of the people, and thus waslaid the sure foundation for the Sinaitic legislation" (p.110).

That seventh day which was singled out for Israel by themiracle of the manna in the Wilderness of Sin, and which

was so kept before them for forty years, that was theidentical seventh day which the word "formed in air by thepower of the Eternal himself" declared to be the Sabbath of the Lord. And that was the very seventh day which thatsame word declared was the one on which God rested fromcreation, the day which he, at creation, blessed andsanctified. That was the only weekly Sabbath that was everknown to Moses or to Israel; and with its institution Moseshad nothing whatever to do, either subtly or otherwise. Andwhen Mr. Elliott brings in Christ as, "more subtly thanMoses, yet as really . . . instituting a new Sabbath," it issimply saying, as a matter of fact, that Christ reallyinstituted no new Sabbath at all. And that is the truth.

[38] "That which he has asserted he had the power to do, we

have the right to assume he has done," says Mr. Elliott. Is,then, the authority of the "Christian Sabbath" to rest uponassumption? Is the first day of the week to be brought in byan inference? The day that has received "the highest andstrongest sanction possible even to Deity;" the day which





their graves, all the dead; by Mr. Elliott's proposition wehave the right to assume that he has done it. Christ hasasserted his power to destroy death; under this novelproposition we have the right to assume that he has done it.

Everybody knows, however, that such assumptions wouldbe absolutely false; but they would be no more so than isMr. Elliott's assumption that Christ changed the Sabbath.Mr. Elliott's proposition is simply absurd. The fact is thatwe have no right to assume anything in the premises.

[40] Christ said: "When ye shall have done all those things

which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitableservants; we have done that which was our duty to do."Luke 17:10. No man can do more than his duty. But whenwe have done all that is commanded, we have but done ourduty. Therefore nothing can be duty that is not commanded.No man ever yet cited a commandment of God for keepingthe first day of the week; there is no such commandment.

Therefore until a commandment of God can be producedwhich enjoins the observance of the first day of the week,there can be no duty in that direction, Mr. Elliott's five-hundred-dollar-prize assumptions to the contrary,notwithstanding.




[41]

CHAPTER V.

"APOSTOLIC TESTIMONY."

In following the author of "The Abiding Sabbath"through the different principal headings under which hisargument is framed, and his logic displayed, next after the"Testimony of Christ" we come to his so-called "ApostolicTestimony." Before we record his first definite proposition

under this head, we wish to repeat one sentence from hisexposition of the "Testimony of Christ:"—

"As Lord of the Sabbath, he doubtless had the power toset it entirely aside—a power which certainly he hasnowhere exercised, either by himself or through his

apostles." —P. 168. Here is the definite, positive statement that Christ has

certainly nowhere, exercised the power to set the Sabbathaside, either by himself or through his apostles. Now pleaseread the following:—

"The Jewish Sabbath is definitely abolished by apostolicauthority." —P. 175.

True, in this latter statement, he prefixes to the Sabbaththe epithet "Jewish;" but on page 190 he defines the"Jewish" Sabbath to be the "seventh day." And as the Lordfrom Heaven said, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of theLord thy God;" as [42] that is the day upon which theLord rested, which he blessed and which he sanctified; asfrom the creation of the world that was the only day thathad ever been known as the Sabbath; and as that day is theonly day that was ever recognized as the Sabbath, by eitherChrist or his apostles, his insertion of the epithet "Jewish"

does not in the least relieve his latter statement from beinga direct contradiction of the former. Therefore, as Christnowhere set the Sabbath aside, "either by himself orthrough his apostles," and as the only weekly Sabbath of which either himself or his apostles knew anything "was



definitely abolished by apostolic authority," it followsinevitably, by his own words, that if the apostles didabolish it, it was without the authority of Christ . But no, no;he will not allow that for an instant. Well, how does he

avoid the conclusion? Oh, that is easy enough; he simplycontradicts again both himself and the conclusion, thus:—

"It is demonstrated that the Sabbath of the law wasabolished by apostolic authority, in accordance with the

developed teachings of Jesus Christ ." —P.186. We beg our readers not to think that we draw out these

sentences for the purpose of making contradictions, nor to

think we are trying to make the matter worse than it reallyis. The contradictions are all there; we simply take them aswe find them. And really we should not know how to goabout it to make the thing worse than it is, nor as bad evenas it is. We could wish indeed, that it were not so: but insuch a cause it can- [43] not be otherwise; and we wantthe people to see exactly how the Sunday institution is

made to stand by an argument that ought to be the mostconclusive, seeing it was considered worthy of a five-hundred-dollar prize.

We proceed. In proof of his word that the "Jewish"Sabbath is definitely abolished by apostolic authority, hesays:—

"No wonder that the apostles could so little tolerate theproposed continuance of the bondage from which Christhad set them free. Gal. 5:1. Had he not taken away 'thehandwriting of ordinances' against them, and 'nailed it tohis cross?'" —P.176.

But of all things the Sabbath is one that can by nopossibility be classed with the ordinances that were against us. Christ said, "The Sabbath was made for man." Theproof is absolute therefore that the Sabbath was no part of

those ordinances which Paul says were "taken away;" forthose that were taken away were such as were against us(Col. 2:14); unless, indeed, by Mr. Elliott's costly reasoningit could be made to appear that the same thing can be for usand against us at the same time. But, allowing all the




wondrous efficacy of this high-priced logic, we doubt itspower to the performance of this feat. Yet on the strengthof the above statement he makes the following assertion:—

"With the ceremonial system vanished the Jewish

Sabbath." —P. 177. It would be an easy task indeed to disprove this, on [44]

our own part; but he does it himself so effectually that weneed merely to copy his words. Of the law given at Sinai,he says:—

"Of the law thus impressively given, the fourthcommandment forms a part. Amid the same cloud of glory,

the same thunders and lightnings, uttered by the same dreadvoice of the Infinite One, and graven by his finger, cameforth these words as well: 'Remember the Sabbath day tokeep it holy.' It is impossible, in view of these facts, to

class the Sabbath with the ceremonial institutions of Israel.By the sacred seal of the divine lip and finger, it has beenraised far above those perishing rites." —P. 118.

That is a fact. It is impossible, even by prefixing to it theepithet "Jewish," to class the Sabbath with the ceremonialinstitutions of Israel. For amid the same cloud of glory, thesame thunderings and lightnings, the same dread voice of the Infinite One, who said, "Remember the Sabbath day tokeep it holy," said also, "The seventh day is the Sabbath"—not of the Jews, but—"of the Lord thy God." It is indeedraised far above the perishing rites and ordinances that wereagainst us. Therefore, although the ceremonial systemvanished, the Sabbath remains; for it is no part of theceremonial, but is an essential part of the moral system.

But Mr. Elliott is not done yet. He continues:—"Such is the relation of apostolic teaching to the Jewish

Sabbath. The yoke of the fathers with its crushing weight of sacerdotal requirements, was cast off. The galling fetters of

tradition were broken, and forever was the infant churchdelivered from 'statutes [45] that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live.' Eze. 20:25." —P.

180. Over against that please read this concerning the Sabbath



of the fourth commandment:—"It belongs to that moral law which Paul calls 'holy, and

just, and good' (Rom. 7:12), and not that ritual law of whichPeter declares, 'neither our fathers nor we were able to bear'

it. Acts 15:10." —Pp. 118, 119. So, then, the "yoke" which was "cast off" had nothing to

do with the Sabbath; and the "statutes that were not good,"etc., from which the infant church was delivered, were notat all those of which the Sabbath is a part, for they are"holy, and just, and good." And more, we should like toknow upon what principle it is that the author of "The

Abiding Sabbath" applies the phrase, "the galling fetters of tradition," to an institution given by the direct word of God,with a voice that shook the earth, and whose obligation wasgraven upon the tables of stone by the divine finger? Forby the term "Jewish" Sabbath he invariably means theseventh day, and that is the very day named by the voice of God. But lo, this is to be pushed aside as "the galling fetters

of tradition;" and in its place is to be put a day—Sunday—to which in all the word of God there is no shadow of sacredness attached; a day which rests for its authoritysolely upon, "we have the right to assume," "the right toinfer," "doubtless," "probably," "in all likelihood," and "areligious consensus of the Christian [46] church" (p.203); and in all this we are to suppose there is nothingtraditional!

Again we read:—"It has already been shown that the Sabbath is a part of

the moral law; it has the mark of universality as co-existentwith man; it embodies a spiritual significance; it has areasonable basis in the physical mental and moral needs of man; it was incorporated in the decalogue, the outline of moral law given to Israel; it was enforced by such

threatened penalties for violation and promised blessingsfor observance as could not have been attached to a merely

ceremonial ordinance; and Jesus confirmed these historicaland rational proofs by his own example and teachings." —P.

183.




That is the truth, and it is well stated. But now see whatan extraordinary conclusion he draws from it:—

"Being, therefore, a part of the moral law, it isestablished as an apostolic institution by every word and

phrase in which the apostles assert that law to be stillbinding on men." —P. 184.

"Being, therefore, a part of the moral law, it isestablished as an apostolic institution"!! Is, then, the morallaw an apostolic institution? Does the moral law find itsorigin in the apostles? Do the precepts of the moral law findtheir spring in the will, and derive their authority from the

actions, of the apostles? We confess it impossible for us tofind language that would fittingly characterize such apreposterous proposition. It is astonishing how any manwho is capable of forming the least conception of morallaw, could set [47] it forth as sober argument. Nor are weallowed to entertain the charitable view that perhaps it wasdone ignorantly; for Mr. Elliott himself has given us a

perfect exposition of the ground of existence of moral law,not only of moral law in the abstract, but also of theSabbath as being itself a moral institution. He says:—

"Suppose the question to be asked, How can we knowthat any precept is moral in its meaning and authority, andnot simply a positive and arbitrary command? What betteranswer could be given to this inquiry than to say that a

moral precept must have the ground of its existence in the

nature of God? Our highest conception of the moral law isto regard it as the transcript of his nature. . . . All mustagree that no more perfect vindication of the moralcharacter of a law can be given than to show that it is a ruleof the divine conduct; that it has been imposed upon hisown activity by that infinite Will which is the supremeauthority both in the physical and moral government of the

universe. That law to which the Creator submits his ownbeing must be of absolute binding force upon everycreature made in his image. Such is the law of the Sabbath.'God rested the seventh day,' and by so doing has given tothe law of the Sabbath the highest and strongest sanction



possible even to Deity." —Pp. 23, 24. Such, in truth, is the origin and ground of authority of all

moral obligation; such is the origin and ground of authorityof the moral obligation of the seventh day. The seventh day

is the only day that has, or ever has had, any suchsanctions; therefore the seventh day is the only day that has,or that can have [48] under the existing order of things,any claim whatever to the moral consideration of mankind.And the above statement of the ground of moral obligationeffectually shows the utter absurdity of the idea that theSabbath, "being a part of the moral law, is established as an

apostolic institution." How could he possibly think himself called upon to make such a statement anyhow? Why, justthus: He has set out to have the first day of the week theSabbath; he knows that it cannot be made to appear withany shadow of authority before the days of the apostles; heknows that even though it be made to originate with them,it can have no authority outside of the church unless it be

moral; therefore, in contradiction of his own proofs, and indefiance of every principle of the basis of moral obligation,he is compelled to make the apostles the source of moralobligation. But he might better have spared himself thepains; for the idea is repugnant to the very consciousness of every man who will pause to think at all upon the subject.The apostles were the subjects, not the authors, of moralobligation.

Notice again that the statement which we are herediscussing is the conclusion which he has drawn from aseries of things which he says had "already been shown;"and we must give him the credit, which is very seldom hisdue, that from his main premises his conclusion is logical.The proposition under which he draws his conclusion isthat, "The apostles, by confirming the moral law, have

enforced the obligation [49] of the Sabbath." Under this,his principal term is:—

"The apostles of Jesus Christ, as he had done in thesermon on the mount, re-enacted for the church the wholedecalogue in its universal meanings." —Pp. 181, 182.




To enact, is "to decree; to establish by legal andauthoritative acts; to make into a law." —Webster.

To re-enact, therefore, is to re-decree, to re-establish bylegal and authoritative acts, to make again into a law. Now,

if after the enactment by God and the re-enactment byChrist, the decalogue still needed to be confirmed by theapostles, and still needed legislative acts of the apostles toestablish it legally and authoritatively as a moral standard,then we submit that Mr. Elliott's conclusion that theSabbath, "being a part of the moral law, is established as anapostolic institution," is strictly logical. But we sincerely

question the wisdom as well as the justice of paying five-hundred-dollar prizes for a style of reasoning which can belogical only in the reversal of every principle of thephilosophy of moral obligation.

It most excellently serves his purpose though. His grandargument from "apostolic testimony" he closes thus:—

"As certainly as historical proof can be adduced for any

fact, so certainly is it demonstrated that the Sabbath of thelaw was abolished by apostolic authority, in accordancewith the developed teachings of Jesus Christ. But althoughthe Sabbath of the law ceased, the law of the Sabbath isabiding." —Pp. 185, 86.

[50] If, then, the Sabbath of the law be abolished while the

law of the Sabbath remains, it must follow that the law of the Sabbath remains with no Sabbath. Oh, no, not at all.This is the emergency which he has all the while beenlaboring to create, and of course he meets it promptly. Hecontinues thus:—

"And it is in the highest degree probable that the Lord'sday which embodied its spirit was instituted by theimmediate authority of the apostles, and therefore by the

supreme authority of their Master, Jesus Christ." —P. 186. And so the grand feat of getting Sunday into the fourth

commandment is accomplished at last; and "it is in thehighest degree probable" that the reader sees just how it isdone. But there is yet one more thing to be done that the



work may be complete in every part; that is, to transfer tothe first day the Sabbath associations with which God hassurrounded the seventh day. And we beg that Mr. Elliott beallowed to tell how that is done, because it rounds out his

work in such symmetrical proportions. He says:—"It is easy to comprehend how the Jewish Sabbath must

almost at once have lost its hold on the affections of thedisciples. . . . In the most powerful manner possible, thosefeelings of festal gladness and holy joy inseparable fromthe true idea of the Sabbath, were forever disconnectedfrom the seventh day. . . . And by the most natural

revulsion of feeling, all that was lost from the seventh daywas transferred to the first day of the week." —P. 188.

There, the work is done; the climax is reached; the [51] "Hill Difficulty" is passed; and the first day of the week hasbecome the "abiding Sabbath." It rests for its authority upon an, "it is in the highest degree probable;" and for itssacredness, upon "the most natural revulsion of feeling."

But against all his probabilities of however high degree,and against all his revulsions of feeling however natural,we set the plain word of God "which liveth and abideth forever:" "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thyGod; in it thou shalt not do any work."




[52]

CHAPTER VI.

"ORIGIN OF THE LORD'S DAY."

After leading us through one hundred and eighty-sixpages of fact and fiction, of truth and error, of contradictionand re-contradiction of Scripture, reason, and himself, theauthor of "The Abiding Sabbath" has arrived at the all-important conclusion that "it is in the highest degree

probable that the Lord's day [Sunday] was instituted by theimmediate authority of the apostles;" and that "by the mostnatural revulsion of feeling all that was lost from theseventh day was transferred to the first day of the week."And so after all this he comes to the discussion of the"origin of the Lord's day." Speaking of the resurrection of Christ, thus he proceeds:—

"The idea of completion, symbolized by the numberseven and embodied in the Sabbath as the memorial of afinished creation, is transferred [by a "natural revulsion of feeling," we suppose, of course] to the Lord's day, themonument of a finished redemption." —P. 189.

If redemption had been finished when the Saviour arosefrom the dead, or were it even yet finished, we shouldquestion the right of Mr. Elliott, or any other man, to erectin memory of it a monument whose only foundation is ahigh degree of probability, and whose [53] only rites of dedication are performed by a "natural revulsion of feeling." How much more may we question this right,when redemption, so far from being finished at theresurrection of Christ, will not be finished till the end of theworld. The disciples asked the Saviour what should be the

sign of his coming and of the end of the world, and heanswered, "There shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon,and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, withperplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; men's heartsfailing them for fear, and for looking after those things



which are coming on the earth; for the powers of heavenshall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of mancoming in a cloud with power and great glory. And whenthese things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up

your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." Luke21:25-28. These things did not "begin to come to pass," till1780 A.D.; for then it was that the sun was turned todarkness and the moon also. Therefore it is plain from thesewords of Christ, that instead of redemption beingcompleted at the resurrection of Christ, it was not even"nigh" for 1749 years after that event.

This is confirmed by Paul. He says: "Ourselves also,which have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselvesgroan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, theredemption of our body." Rom. 8:23. Our bodies will beredeemed at the resurrection of the dead: "I will ransomthem from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from[54] death" (Hos. 13:14); and the resurrection of the dead

is accomplished at the second coming of the Lord. "For theLord himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, withthe voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; andthe dead in Christ shall rise first; then we which are alive

and remain shall be caught up together with them in theclouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever bewith the Lord." 1 Thess. 4:16, 17. Therefore Paul, in tellingof our redemption, places its accomplishment exactlywhere Christ places it, that is, at the second coming of theLord, and not at his resurrection.

Again Paul writes: "In whom [in Christ] ye also trusted,after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of yoursalvation; in whom also, after that ye believed, ye weresealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnestof our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased

possession." Eph. 1:13, 14. "That Holy Spirit of promise"was not given until the day of Pentecost, forty-nine daysafter the resurrection of Christ; and this, says Paul, is theearnest of our inheritance until (not because of) theredemption of the purchased possession. By this Holy




Spirit, says Paul, "ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." Eph. 4:30. Now as the Holy Spirit was givento be with those who trust in Christ "until the redemption,"and as that Spirit was not so given till forty-nine days after

the resurrection of Christ, this is proof most positive thatthe day of the resur- [55] rection of Christ could notpossibly be made "the monument of a finishedredemption." And when Mr. Elliott, or anybody else,whether individually or by "a general consensus of theChristian church," sets up the first day of the week as amonument of a finished redemption, it simply perverts the

Scripture doctrine of redemption, and puts darkness forlight, and error for truth.

Again he says of the first day of the week:—" It is the abiding Sabbath. It was on the first day of the

week that the Saviour rose. It is remarkable that this phrase,'first day of the week,' marks the only case in which anyday of the week is distinguished from the rest in Scripture

by its number, excepting the seventh day, or JewishSabbath. Eight times the term is used in the NewTestament, five of the instances occurring in connectionwith the account of the Lord's resurrection. Other days haveno distinctive title, save only the sixth day, which is the''Sabbath eve,' or ''day of preparation.' The first day istherefore placed in such significant relation with theseventh day as to impress upon it a meaning which cannotbe disregarded." —Pp. 189, 190.

If the mention of the first day of the week eight times inthe New Testament marks it so distinctively and impressesupon it so strong a meaning as Mr. Elliott imagines, how isit that the mention of the Sabbath fifty-nine times in theNew Testament (with sole reference to the seventh day) canimpress upon it no meaning whatever? It would seem that

if the mention of a day would give any distinction at all toit, the day that is mentioned most would properly be en-[56] titled to the most distinction. But behold, here it is just the reverse; the day that is mentioned eight times isentitled to the distinction, while a day that is mentioned



more than seven times as often is entitled to no distinctionwhatever!

He remarks the "significant relations" in which the firstday of the week is placed with the seventh, but in not one

instance does he notice these relations. We shall do it forhim; for there is a relation there which is very "significant"indeed, in view of his theory that the first day of the week is "the abiding Sabbath."

The first mention of the first day of the week in the NewTestament is in Matt. 28:1: "In the end of the Sabbath, as itbegan to dawn toward the first day of week, came Mary

Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher." Thereis a "significant" relation between the Sabbath—the seventhday—and the first day of the week; and that which issignified by it is that the Sabbath is ended before the firstday of the week begins.

The next mention is in Mark 16:1, 2: "And when theSabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother

of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that theymight come and anoint him. And very early in the morning,the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher atthe rising of the sun." Here also is a very significantrelation between the Sabbath and the first day of the week;and the significance of it is that the Sabbath is past beforethe [57] first day of the week comes. Notice, too, thatthese women came to the sepulcher very early in themorning the first day of the week; yet as early as it was,"the Sabbath was past ." And the significance of that is,that Mr. Elliott, or anyone else, may arise very early in the

morning the first day of the week, just as early as he pleasesin fact, but he will be too late for the Sabbath—he will findthat the Sabbath is past; it will not "abide" on the first dayof the week.

The third mention is Luke 23:54-56; 24:1: "And that day[the day of crucifixion] was the preparation, and theSabbath drew on. And the women also, which came withhim from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulcher,and how his body was laid. And they returned, and




prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath dayaccording to the commandment. Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto thesepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and

certain others with them." In this passage, the "relations"between the Sabbath and the first day of the week aredoubly significant. For here it is not only shown that theSabbath is past before the first day of the week comes; it isnot only shown that although people may arise very early inthe morning the first day of the week, they will be too latefor the Sabbath; but it is stated explicitly that the Sabbath

that was past was "the Sabbath day according to thecommandment ." Therefore it is by these texts proved asabsolutely as the word of God can [58] prove anything,that Sunday, the first day of the week, the so-called Lord'sday, is not the Sabbath according to the commandment of God; and that when people rest on Sunday, the first day of the week, they do not rest "according to the

commandment." It is likewise proved that the Sabbathaccording to the commandment is—not a seventh part of time, nor simply one day in seven, but—the definiteseventh day of the week, the day before the one on whichChrist rose from the dead.

We repeat: the relations in which are placed the seventhday and the first, in the Scripture, are indeed most"significant,"—so significant that it is utterly impossible tohonestly or truthfully pass off the first day of the week asthe Sabbath; and that it proves positively that the daybefore that upon which Christ arose from the dead, the daybefore the first day of the week, is the Sabbath according tothe commandment of God; and that therefore the seventhday, and not the first, is "the abiding Sabbath."

But our author continues:—

"After the several appearances of the Saviour on the dayof his resurrection, there is no recorded appearance until aweek later, when the first day is again honored by theMaster. John 20:26. The exact mention of the time, whichis not usual even with John's exactness, very evidently



implies that there was already attached a specialsignificance to the 'first day of the week' at the time whenthis gospel was written." —P. 190.

From Mr. Elliott's assertion of "the exact mention [59]

of the time, which is not usual even with John's exactness,"it would naturally be supposed that John 20:26 makes exactmention of the first day of the week; we might expect toopen the book and read there some such word as, "the nextfirst day of the week," etc. Now let us read the passagereferred to, and see how much exactness of expressionthere is about the first day of the week. The record says:

"And after eight days again his disciples were within, andThomas with them; then came Jesus, the doors being shut,and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you." John20:26.

There is the "exact mention" which attaches significanceto the first day of the week! That is, an expression in whichthe first day of the week is not mentioned; an expression,

indeed, in which there is no exactness at all, but which iswholly indefinite. " After eight days" is exactly the phrasewhich John wrote. Will Mr. Elliott tell us exactly how longafter? Granting that it was the very next day after eightdays, then we would ask the author of the "AbidingSabbath" if the first day of the week comes every ninth day? If this is to be considered an exact mention of time,unusual even with John's exactness, then we should like tosee a form of words which Mr. Elliott would considerinexact.

Perhaps some one may ask what day we think it was. Wemake no pretensions to wisdom above that which is written.And as the word of God says it was "after eight days,"without telling us anything about how [60] long after,we know nothing more definitely about what day it was

than what the word tells us, that it was "after eight days."We know of a similar expression in Matt. 17:1: "And after

six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother,and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart;" and weknow that Luke's record of the same scene says: "And it




came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, hetook Peter, and John, and James, and went up into amountain to pray." Luke 9:28. Therefore we know thatInspiration shows that "after six days" is "about eight days,"

and by the same rule "after eight days" is about ten days.But even then it is as indefinite as it was before, andInspiration alone knows what day it was.

But, though we know nothing at all about what day itwas, we do know what day it was not . We know that themeeting previous to the one under consideration was on thefirst day of the week, John 20:19. We know that the next

first day of the week would come exactly a week from thattime. We know that a week consists of exactly seven days.And as the word of God says plainly that this meeting was"after eight days," we therefore know by the word of Godthat this meeting was not on the next first day of the week.

What saith the Scripture about the first day of the week?And what was the purpose of the Saviour's repeated

appearances on the day of his resurrection? Let us see.[61] 1. "In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward

the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and theother Mary to see the sepulcher." Matt. 28:1. Here all that issaid is, that two women went to the sepulcher on the firstday of the week. Well, what reason for keeping the first dayof the week lies in that fact? None whatever.

2. "And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene,and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had boughtsweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. Andvery early in the morning, the first day of the week, theycame unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun." Mark 16:1, 2. Can anybody tell what there is about this text thatshows that the first day of the week is the Sabbath? How

can the first day of the week be the Sabbath, and yet theSabbath be past before the first day of the week begins?

3. "Now upon the first day of the week, very early in themorning, they [the women who came from Galilee] cameunto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had



prepared, and certain others with them." Luke 24:14. "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene

early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher and seeththe stone taken away from the sepulcher." John 20:1.

Notice that these four statements—one by each of theGospel writers—are not four records of four distinct things,but four distinct records of the same thing, and the sametime, even the same hour. Each one tells [62] whatoccurred in the morning of a certain first day of the week,and the only fact stated in all four of the records, about thefirst day of the week, is that certain women came to the

sepulcher very early in the morning. Then what is there inall this upon which to base any reason for keeping the firstday of the week? Nothing.

In the Gospels there is mention made of the first day of the week only twice more. These are in Mark and John.And the record in John and the close of the record in Mark speak of the same time precisely, only it is in the evening,

whereas, the other was in the morning of that same first dayof the week.5. Here is Mark's record: "Now when Jesus was risen

early the first day of the week he appeared first to MaryMagdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And shewent and told them that had been with him, as theymourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that hewas alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After thathe appeared in another form unto two of them [Luke 24:13-48], as they walked, and went into the country. And theywent and told it unto the residue; neither believed theythem. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat atmeat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardnessof heart, because they believed not them which had seenhim after he was risen." Mark 16:9-14.

6. Of this same time John says: "Then the same day atevening, being the first day of the week, when [63] thedoors were shut where the disciples were assembled forfear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, andsaith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so




said, he showed unto them his hands and his side. Thenwere the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord." John20:19, 20.

Here, then, are all the instances in which the term "first

day of the week" is used in the Gospels, and the manifeststory is simply this: When the Sabbath was past, thewomen came to the sepulcher very early in the morning onthe first day of the week, and found the stone rolled awayfrom the sepulcher, and Jesus risen. Then Jesus appeared toMary Magdalene, and she went and told the disciples that Jesus was risen and they "believed not." Then Jesus

appeared to two of the disciples themselves as they wentinto the country, and they went and told it to the others,who yet believed not. Then Jesus appeared to all thecompany together and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart because they had not believed themwhich had seen him after he was risen, then showed themhis hands, and his feet, and his side, and said: "Behold my

hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see. . .. Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of abroiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and dideat before them." Luke 24:39-43.

Now take this whole narrative from beginning to endand where is there a word in it that conveys any idea thatanybody ever kept the first day of the week, or that [64] itever should be kept as the Sabbath or for any other sacredor religious purpose whatever? Just nowhere at all. TheScriptures throughout show that the purpose of the repeatedappearances of Jesus was not to institute a new Sabbath, forthere is not one word said about it, but to convince his

disciples that he really was risen, and was alive again, that

they might be witnesses to the fact . The words above quotedshow this, but Thomas was not there with the others, and he

still did not believe, and so at another time, "after eightdays," Thomas was with them, and Jesus came again for theexpress purpose of convincing him, for he simply said tothe company, "Peace be unto you," and then spoke directlyto Thomas, saying: "Reach hither thy finger, and behold



my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into myside; and be not faithless, but believing." John 20:24-27.

This is made positive by the words of Peter: "Him Godraised up the third day, and showed him openly; not to all

the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, evento us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the

dead." Acts 10:40, 41. "This Jesus hath God raised up,whereof we all are witnesses." Acts 2:32. And that eveningof the day of his resurrection, when he said to the eleven tohandle him and see that it was he, and when he ate thepiece of broiled fish and of a honeycomb, he said to them,

"Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer,and to rise from the dead the third day; . . . and ye are

witnesses of these things." Luke 24:46-48.[65] Once more, Peter said, Ye "killed the Prince of life,

whom God hath raised from the dead ; whereof we are

witnesses." Acts 3:15.

They were witnesses that Christ was risen from the deadbecause a living Saviour, and faith in a living Saviour,alone could be preached. How did they become suchwitnesses? Christ showed himself to them, and "did eatand drink with them after he rose from the dead." Thenwhat was the purpose of his appearances on this first day of the week mentioned in the four Gospels, and hisappearance to Thomas afterward? To give them "infallible

proofs" that he was "alive after his passion." Acts 1:3.Then where does the first-day-of-the-week Sabbath comein? Nowhere. In these texts, in the four Gospels, whichspeak of the first day of the week, where is there conveyedany idea that that day shall be kept as the Sabbath?Nowhere.

Then says Mr. Elliott:—

"These repeated appearances of Jesus upon the first daydoubtless furnished the first suggestion of the practicewhich very quickly sprang up in the church of employingthat day for religious assembly and worship. . . . Thisimpression must have been strongly intensified by the




miraculous occurrences of Pentecost, if that festival fell, aswe think probable, on the first day of the week—a viewmaintained by the early tradition of the church and by manyeminent scholars." —Pp. 190, 191.

Yes, "doubtless" it "must have been," "if" it was as hethinks "probable." But against the "early tradition of thechurch," and the "many eminent scho- [66] lars," wewill place just as many and as eminent scholars, and theword of God. It is true that the day of the week on whichthat Pentecost came is not of the least importance in itself either for or against any sacredness that was put upon it by

that occurrence. It is "the day of Pentecost" that is namedby the word of God. It was the feast of Pentecost with itstypes, that was to meet the grand object—the reality—towhich its services had ever pointed. And everybody knowsthat the Pentecost came on each day of the week insuccession as the years passed by; the same as doesChristmas, or the Fourth of July, or any other yearly

celebration. Therefore whatever were its occurrences, theycould have no purpose in giving to the day of the week onwhich it fell any particular significance.

Yet though this be true, there is so much made of it bythose who will have the first day of the week to be theSabbath, by claiming always that Pentecost was on the firstday of the week, that we feel disposed to refer to theScriptures, which show that this claim is not founded onfact.

The word Pentecost signifies "the fiftieth day," and wasalways counted, beginning with the sixteenth day of thefirst month. It is also called "the feast of weeks," because itwas seven complete weeks from the day of the offering of the first-fruits, which was the second day of the feast of unleavened bread, the sixteenth day of the first month. On

the fourteenth day of the first month, all leaven was to beput away from all the houses.

[67] They were to kill the passover lamb in the evening of the

fourteenth, and with it, at the beginning of the fifteenth day



of the month, they were to begin to eat the unleavenedbread, and the feast of unleavened bread was to continueuntil the twenty-second day of the month. The first day of the feast, that is, the fifteenth of the month, was to be a

sabbath, no servile work was to be done in that day. Ex.12:6-8, 15-19: Lev. 23:5-7. Because of the putting away of the leaven on the fourteenth day, and the beginning to eatthe unleavened bread on the evening of that day, it issometimes referred to as the first day of unleavened bread;but the fifteenth day was really the first, and was the one onwhich no servile work was to be done.

On "the morrow" after this fifteenth day of the month—this sabbath—the wave-sheaf of the first-fruits was to beoffered before the Lord, and with that day— the sixteenthday of the month—they were to begin to count fifty days,and when they reached the fiftieth day that was Pentecost .Lev. 23:10, 11, 15, 16; Deut. 16:8, 9. Now if we can learnon what day of the week the passover fell at the time of the

crucifixion, we can tell on what day of the week thePentecost came that year. We know that the Saviour wascrucified "the day before the Sabbath." Mark 15.42. Weknow that the Sabbath was "the Sabbath day according tothe commandment" (Luke 23:54-56), and that was theseventh day—Saturday— and therefore "the day before,"was the sixth day— Friday. It is plain, then, that Jesus wascrucified on [68] Friday; this in itself, requires no proof,but it is important to distinctly mention it here, because theday before he was crucified, "the disciples came to Jesus,saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee

to eat the passover? And he said, Go into the city to such aman, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is athand; I will keep the passover at thy house with mydisciples. And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed

them; and they made ready the passover ." Matt. 26:17-19;Mark 14:12-16; Luke 22:7-15. And that was the evening of Thursday, the fourteenth day of the month; because "thefourteenth day of the month at even is the Lord's passover."Lev. 23:5; Ex. 12:6.




From the passover supper Jesus went direct toGethsemane, whence he was taken by the mob which Judashad brought, and after his shameful treatment by the priestsand Pharisees and soldiers, was crucified in the afternoon

of the same day. That was the fifteenth day of the month,the first day of the feast of unleavened bread; and themorrow after that day was the first of the fifty days whichreached to Pentecost. Therefore, as the day of thecrucifixion was the first day of the feast of unleavenedbread, and was Friday, the fifteenth day of the month; andas the next day, the sixteenth of the month, was the Sabbath

according to the commandment, and was the first of thefifty days; anyone who will count the fifty days will findfor himself that "the fiftieth day," Pentecost, fell that yearon "the Sabbath day according to the commandment," andthat is the seventh day.

[69] So then the day which the advocates of Sunday

sacredness claim has received such sacred sanctions by theoccurrences of the day of Pentecost, was not the first day of the week at all; but it was the seventh day, the very daywhich they so unsparingly condemn. (See Geikie's "Life of Christ," Smith's "Dictionary of the Bible," and the opinionsof such men as Neander, Olshausen, Dean Alford,Lightfoot, Jennings, Professor Hackett, Albert Barnes, etc.)Let us say again that we make no use of this fact in the wayof claiming any sacredness for the seventh day because of it; that day, in the beginning, was given "the highest andstrongest sanction possible even to Deity," and nothing wasever needed afterward to add to its sacredness. We simplystate it as the truth according to the Scriptures; and being,as it is, the truth, it shows that the claims for Sundaysacredness based upon the occurrences of Pentecost are

entirely unfounded.



[70]

CHAPTER VII.

"APOSTOLIC EXAMPLE," OR CHRIST'SEXAMPLE?

ACTS 20:7.

In continuing his search for the origin of the first day of the week as the Lord's day, the author of "The Abiding

Sabbath" comes to Acts 20:7. As this text mentions ameeting of disciples on the first day of the week, at whichan apostle preached, it is really made the foundation uponwhich to lay the claim of the custom of the primitivechurch, and the example of the apostles in sanctioning theobservance of Sunday as the Sabbath. But although therewas a meeting held on the first day of the week, and

although an apostle was at the meeting, as a matter of fact,there is in it neither custom nor example in favor of keepingSunday as the Sabbath. Here is what Mr. Elliott makes of the passage:—

"The most distinct reference to the Christian use of thefirst day of the week is that found in Acts 20:7: 'And uponthe first day of the week, when the disciples came togetherto break bread, Paul preached unto them.' . . . The languageclearly implies that the apostle availed himself of theoccasion brought about by the custom of assemblage on thefirst day of the week to preach to the people. . . . Here, then,is a plain record of the custom of assemblage on the firstday of [71] the week, less than thirty years after theresurrection. The language is just what would be used insuch a case." —Pp. 194, 195.

It is hard to see how he can find "a plain record of thecustom of assemblage on the first day of the week," whenthe record says nothing at all about any such custom. In allthe narrative of which this verse forms a part there is nomention whatever of anything that was there done being




done according to custom, nor to introduce what shouldbecome a custom, nor that it was to be an example to befollowed by Christians throughout all coming time. So thefact is that Mr. Elliott's "plain record" of a custom lacks the

essential thing which would show a custom.Nor is his statement that "the language is just what

would be used in such a case," any more in accordance withthe fact; for when Luke, who wrote this record, hadoccasion to speak of that which was a custom he did soplainly. For example: "And he [Jesus] came to Nazareth,where he had been brought up; and, as his custom was, he

went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood upfor to read." Luke 4:16. Again: "And Paul, as his manner [custom] was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath daysreasoned with them out of the Scriptures." Acts 17:2. Inthese two passages, the words, "as his custom was," and "ashis manner was," as Luke wrote them, are identical—Kata

to eiothos—and in both instances mean precisely as his

custom was; and that "language is just what" Inspirationhas used in such cases as a [72] plain record of a custom.Therefore we submit that the total absence of any suchlanguage from the passage under consideration, is validargument that it is not a record of any such thing as thecustom of the assemblage of Christians on the first day of the week.

If the record really said that it was then a custom toassemble on the first day of the week; if it said: Upon thefirst day of the week, when the disciples came together, as

their custom was, as the same writer says that it was thecustom of Christ and of Paul to go to the Sabbathassemblies; if it said: Upon the first day of the week Paulpreached to the disciples as his custom was; then no mancould deny that such was indeed the custom: but as in the

word of God there is neither statement nor hint to thateffect, no man can rightly affirm that such was a custom,without going beyond the word of God; and that isprohibited by the word itself—"Thou shalt not add thereto,nor diminish from it." Deut. 12:32. More than this, reading



into that passage the "custom" of assemblage on the firstday of the week, is not only to go beyond that which iswritten; it is to do violence to the very language in which itis written. The meaning of the word "custom" is, "A

frequent repetition of the same act." A single act is notcustom. An act repeated once or twice is not custom. The frequent repetition of an act, that is custom. Now as Acts20:7 is the only case on record that a religious meeting wasever held, either by the disciples or the apostles, on the firstday of the week, as there is no [73] record of a single repetition of that act, much less of a "frequent repetition" of

it, it follows inevitably that there is no shadow of justicenor of right in the claim that the custom of the apostles andof the primitive church sanctions the observance of that dayas the day of rest and worship—the Sabbath. There was nosuch custom.

We have a few words more to say on this passage, andthat we may discuss it with the best advantage to the reader

we copy the whole connection:—"And upon the first day of the week, when the disciplescame together to break bread, Paul preached unto them,ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speechuntil midnight. And there were many lights in the upperchamber, where they were gathered together. And there satin a window a certain young man named Eutychus, beingfallen into a deep sleep; and as Paul was long preaching, hesunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft,and was taken up dead. And Paul went down, and fell onhim, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; forhis life is in him. When he therefore was come up again,and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while,even till break of day, so he departed." Verses 7-11.

Upon the face of this whole narrative it is evident that

this meeting was at night. Let us put together several of thestatements: (1) "Upon the first day of the week when thedisciples came together . . . there were many lights in theupper chamber, where [74] they were gathered together ."(2) "Paul preached unto them . . . and continued his speech




until midnight ." (3) At midnight Eutychus fell out of thewindow, and Paul went down and brought him up, and thenhe broke the bread and ate, therefore we may read, "Thedisciples came together to break bread," and after midnight

the bread was broken. (4) After that Paul "talked a longwhile, even till break of day, so he departed." Therefore wemay read, (5) Upon the first day of the week, the disciplescame together, and there were many lights where they weregathered together. They came together to break bread, andafter midnight the bread was broken. Paul preached untothem until midnight, and even till break of day. When the

disciples came together, Paul was ready to depart on themorrow, and when he had talked a long while, even tillbreak of day, so he departed. There can be no room for anyreasonable doubt that the meeting referred to in Acts 20:7was wholly a night meeting, and not only that but that itwas an all-night meeting.

This meeting being therefore in the night of the first day

of the week, the question properly arises, According to theBible, what part of the complete day does the night form?Is the night the first or the last part of the complete day?The Bible plainly shows that the night is the first part of theday. There was darkness on the earth before there was light.When God created the world, darkness was upon the faceof the deep. Then "God said, Let there be light, [75] andthere was light." Then "God called the light day, and thedarkness he called night." As the darkness was callednight, as the darkness was upon the earth before the light,and as it takes both the night and the day—the darkness andthe light—to make the complete day, it follows that in thetrue count of days by the revolution of the earth, the nightprecedes the day. This is confirmed by the Scripture: "Theevening [the darkness, the night] and the morning [the light,

the day] were the first day."This is the order which God established in the beginning

of the world; it is the order that is laid down in thebeginning of the book of God; and it is the order that isfollowed throughout the book of God. In Leviticus 23:27-



32, giving directions about the day of atonement, God saidthat it should be "the tenth day of the seventh month," andthat that was from the ninth day of the month at even;"from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath."

Thus the tenth day of the month began in the evening of theninth day of the month. And so according to Bible timeevery day begins in the evening, and evening is at the goingdown of the sun. Deut. 16:6. Therefore as the meetingmentioned in Acts 20:7-11 was in the night of the first dayof the week, and as in the word and the order of God thenight is the first part of the day, it follows that the meeting

was on what is now called Saturday night. For if it had beenon what is now called Sunday night it would have been onthe second day of the week and not on [76] the first. SoConybeare and Howson, in "Life and Epistles of Paul," say:"It was the evening which succeeded the Jewish Sabbath."And that is now called Saturday night.

This meeting, then, being on what is now called

Saturday night, as Paul preached till midnight, and after thebreaking of bread talked till break of day and departed, itfollows that at break of day on the first day of the week, atbreak of day on Sunday, Paul started afoot from Troas toAssos, a distance of twenty miles, with the intention of going on board a ship at Assos and continuing his journey,which he did. For says the record: "We [Paul's companionsin travel, Acts 20:4] went before to ship, and sailed untoAssos, there intending to take in Paul; for so had heappointed, minding himself to go afoot. And when he metwith us at Assos, we took him in, and came to Mitylene."Verses 13, 14. Paul not only walked from Troas to Assoson Sunday, but he appointed that his companions shouldsail to that place —about forty miles by water—and bethere by the time he came so that he could go on without

delay. And when he reached Assos he went at once aboardthe ship and sailed away to Mitylene, which was nearlyforty miles further. That is to say, on the first day of theweek Paul walked twenty miles and then sailed nearly fortymore, making nearly sixty miles that he traveled; and he




appointed that his companions—Luke, Timothy, Tychicus,Trophimus, Gaius, Aristarchus, and Secundus—should sailforty miles [77] and then take him aboard, and all sailnearly forty miles more, making nearly eighty miles travel

for them, all on Sunday. And this is exactly how theseChristians kept that first day of the week of which mentionis made in Acts 20.

But nowadays men try to make it appear that it is anawful sin to travel on Sunday. Yes, some people now seemto think that if a ship should sail on Sunday, the sin wouldbe so great that nothing but a perfect miracle of grace

would keep it from sinking. Paul neither taught nor actedany such thing, for says the record: "We went before toship, and sailed; . . . for so had he appointed ." Paul and hiscompanions regarded Sunday in nowise different from theother common working days of the week. For, mark, thefirst day of the week they sailed from Troas to Mitylene,"the next day" they sailed from Mitylene to Chios, "the

next day" from Chios to Samos and Trogyllium, and "thenext day" to Miletus. Here are "the first day of the week,""the next day," "the next day," and "the next day," and Pauland his companions did the same things on one of thesedays that they did on another. They considered one of themno more sacred than another. They considered the first dayof the week to be no more of a sabbath than the next day, orthe next day, or the next day. True, Paul preached all night,before he started on the first day of the week; but on thefifth or sixth day of the week he preached also at Miletus,to the elders of the church of Ephesus.

[78] Instead, therefore, of the Sunday deriving any sacredness

from the word of God, or resting for its observance uponthe authority of that word, or upon that which is just and

right, or upon the example of the apostles, or the custom of the primitive church, it is contrary to all these. It isessentially an interloper, and rests for its so-calledsacredness and for its authority upon nothing but "thecommandments of men."







God; and because, secondly, although we know that thedoctrine and the writings of the apostles are inspired, yetwe know also that all their actions were not inspired. Thiswe know because the inspired record tells us so. Here is the

inspired record of one instance in point: "When Peter wascome to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he

was to be blamed . For before that certain came from James,he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come, hewithdrew and separated himself, fearing them which wereof the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembledlikewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried

away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that theywalked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, Isaid unto Peter before them all," etc. Gal. 2:11-14.

Peter "was to be blamed." He "walked not uprightlyaccording to the truth of the gospel." Then what kind of "apostolic example" was that to follow? and where werethose led who followed it? They were being carried away

with dissimulation— two-facedness, hypocrisy; they werebeing led away from "the truth of the gospel." But theycould claim apostolic example for it, and that too with thevery apostles—Peter and Barnabas—present, whom theymight claim as their examples. But God did not leave themthere; he rebuked their sin, and corrected their fault, andbrought them back from their [82] blameworthiness touprightness once more according to the truth of the gospel.And in the record of it God has shown all men that there isno such thing as "apostolic example" for anybody tofollow, but that the truth of the gospel and the word of Godis that according to which all men must walk.

Another instance, and in this even Paul himself wasinvolved: "Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again andvisit our brethren in every city where we have preached the

word of the Lord, and see how they do. And Barnabasdetermined to take with them John, whose surname wasMark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them,who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went notwith them to the work. And the contention was so sharp




between them, that they departed asunder one from theother." Acts 15:36-39.

"The contention was so sharp between them." Is that"apostolic example" which is to be followed by all men?

Everybody will at once say, No. But why is it not?Because it is not right. But when we say that that is notright, in that very saying we at once declare that there is astandard by which the apostles themselves must be tried,and by which their example must be measured. And that isto acknowledge at once that there is no such thing as"apostolic example."

We do not cite these things to reproach the apostles, norto charge them with not being Christians. They were menof like passions with all the rest of [83] us; and weresubject to failings as well as all the rest of us. They hadweaknesses in themselves to strengthen by exercise indivine grace, and defects of moral character to overcome bythe help of God. They had to fight the good fight of faith as

well as all the rest of us. And they fought the good fightand became at last "more than conquerors through Him thathath loved" them as well as us, and hath washed us all"from our sins in his own blood." Far be it that we shouldcite these things to reproach the apostles; we simply bringforth the record which God has given of the apostles, toshow to men that if they will be perfect they must have ahigher aim than "the example of the apostles." By thesethings from the word of God we would show to men that, inworking out the problem of human destiny under theperfect law of God, that problem must be worked by anexample that never fails. We write these things not that welove the apostles less, but Christ more. And this is onlywhat the apostles themselves have shown. Ask the apostleswhether we shall follow them as examples. Peter, shall we

follow your example? Answer: "Christ also suffered forus, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps;

who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth." 1Peter 2:21, 22. Paul, shall we not follow your example?Answer: "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of






perfect rule of human duty; that the Lord Jesus Christ is theone perfect example that has been worked out in this worldunder that rule; and that all men who will correctly solvethe problem of human destiny must solve it by the terms of

that rule as exemplified in, and according to, that example.Whoever attempts to solve the problem by any other rule oraccording to any other example will utterly fail of a correctsolution; and whoever teaches men to attempt to solve it byany other rule or according to any other example, eventhough it be by "the example of the apostles," he both actsand teaches treason against the Lord Jesus Christ.

What, then, is the example of Christ in regard to keepingthe first day of the week? There is no example about it atall. He never kept it. No one ever can—in fact no one everdoes—claim any example of Christ for keeping the first dayof the week. But where there is no example of Christ therecan be no example of the apostles. Therefore there is not,and cannot be, any such thing as the example of the

apostles for keeping the first day of the week.[86] What, then, is the example of Christ in regard to keeping

the seventh day? He kept the first seventh day the worldever saw, when he had finished his great work of creation.When he came into the world, everybody knows that hekept it as long as he lived in the world. And "he that saithhe abideth in him ought himself also so to walk even as hewalked." Therefore those who walk as he walked will haveto keep the seventh day. His steps led him to the place of worship on the seventh day, for thus "his custom was"(Luke 4:16), and he taught the people how to keep theseventh day, the Sabbath of the Lord (Matt. 12:1-12). Andhe has left "us an example that ye should follow his steps."And all who follow his steps will be led by those steps to

keep the seventh day, and to turn away their feet from theSabbath, for such is his example.

Paul said, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." Now was Paul a follower of Christ in the matter of the seventh day? Let us see: "And he [Christ] came to



Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and, as his

custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbathday, and stood up for to read ." Luke 4:16. And of Paul it issaid, by the same writer, "They came to Thessalonica,

where was a synagogue of the Jews, and Paul, as hismanner [custom] was, went in unto them, and three Sabbathdays reasoned with them out of the Scriptures." Acts 17:1,2. Paul did follow Christ in his "custom" of keeping theSabbath day—the seventh day—therefore if any man [87] will obey the word of God by Paul, and will be a followerof Paul as he followed Christ, it will have to be his

"custom" to go to the house of God, and to worship God,on the seventh day.

For the keeping of the seventh day we have thecommandment of God, the example of the living God (Ex.20:8-11; Gen. 2:3), and the example of the Lord JesusChrist both in Heaven and on earth, both as Creator andRedeemer. And there is neither command nor example for

the keeping of any other day. Will you obey thecommandment of God, and follow the divine example indivine things? or will you instead obey a human commandand follow human examples in human things, and expectthe divine reward for it? Answer yourself now as youexpect to answer God in the Judgment.

1 CORINTHIANS 16:2.

The next reference noticed by Mr. Elliott is 1 Cor. 16:1,2, of which he writes—

"Another incidental allusion to the religious use of theday—an allusion none the less valuable becauseincidental—is the direction of Paul in 1 Cor. 16:1, 2: 'Nowconcerning the collection for the saints, as I have given

order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon thefirst day of the week let every one of you lay by him instore as God hath prospered him, that there be nogatherings when I come.' . . . The Corinthians were on thatday to deposit their alms in a common treasury." —Pp. 195,




196. Paul's direction is, "Let every one of you lay by him in

store;" Mr. Elliott says they were "to deposit [88] theiralms in a common treasury." Now can a man lay by him in

store, and deposit in a common treasury, the same money atthe same time? If there are any, especially of those whokeep Sunday, who think that it can be done, let them try it.Next Sunday, before you go to meeting find out how Godhas prospered you, and set apart accordingly that sum of money which you will lay by you in store by depositing itin the common treasury of the church. Then as you go to

church, take the money along, and when the collection boxis passed, put in it that which you are going to lay by you instore; and the work is done! According to Mr. Elliott'sidea, you have obeyed this scripture. That is you haveobeyed it by putting away from you the money which theScripture directs you to lay by you. You have put into thehands of others that which is to be laid by you. You have

carried away and placed entirely beyond your control, andwhere you will never see it again, that which is to be laidby you in store. In other words you have obeyed theScripture by directly disobeying it.

True, that is a novel kind of obedience; but no one needbe surprised at it in this connection; for that is the only kindof obedience to the Scripture that can ever be shown bykeeping Sunday as the Sabbath. The commandment of Godsays "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. . . . Theseventh day is the Sabbath." And people propose to obeythat commandment by remembering the first day instead of the seventh. The word of God says: "The seventh [89] day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not

do any work ;" and people who keep Sunday propose toobey that word by working all day on the day in which God

says they shall do no work. And so it is in perfect accordwith the principles of the Sunday-sabbath that Mr. Elliottshould convey the idea that 1 Cor. 16:2 was obeyed bydoing directly the opposite of what the text says.

But he seeks to justify his theory by the following



remark:—"That this laying in store did not mean a simple hoarding

of gifts by each one in his own house, is emphaticallyshown by the reason alleged for the injunction, 'that there

be no gatherings' (i. e. "collections," the same word used inthe first verse) 'when I come.' . . . If the gifts had had to becollected from house to house, the very object of theapostle's direction would have failed to be secured."

This reasoning might be well enough if it were true. Butit is not true. This we know because Paul himself has toldus just what he meant, and has shown us just what the

Corinthians understood him to mean; and Mr. Elliott'stheory is the reverse of Paul's record of facts. A year afterwriting the first letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote thesecond letter; and in the second letter he makes explicitmention of this very "collection for the saints," about whichhe had given these directions in the first letter. In thesecond letter (chap. 9:1-5), Paul writes:—

"For as touching the ministering to the saints, it issuperfluous for me to write to you; for I know the for- [90]

wardness of your mind, for which I boast of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia was ready a year ago; and yourzeal hath provoked very many. Yet have I sent the brethren,lest our boasting of you should be in vain in this behalf;that , as I said, ye may be ready; lest haply if they of Macedonia come with me, and find you unprepared , we(that we say not, ye) should be ashamed in this sameconfident boasting. Therefore I thought it necessary toexhort the brethren, that they would go before unto you,and make up before-hand your bounty, whereof ye hadnotice before, that the same might be ready, as a matter of bounty, and not as of covetousness."

Now if Mr. Elliott's theory be correct, that the

Corinthians were to deposit their alms in a commontreasury each first day of the week, and if that was whatPaul meant that they should do, then why should Paul think it "necessary" to send brethren before himself "to make up"this bounty, so "that it might be ready" when he came? If




Mr. Elliott's theory be correct, what possible danger couldthere have been of these brethren finding the Corinthians"unprepared"? and why should Paul be afraid that theywere unprepared? No; Mr. Elliott's theory and argument

are contrary to the facts. In the first letter to the Corinthians(16:2), Paul meant just what he said, that on the first day of the week every one should "lay by him in store;" and theCorinthian Christians so understood it, and so likewisewould everyone else understand it, were it not that its perversion is so sorely [91] essential in bolstering up thebaseless fabric of the Sunday Lord's day. But the

Corinthians, having no such thing to cripple or pervert theirability to understand plain language, understood it as it waswritten, and as Paul meant that it should be understood.Each one laid by him as directed; then when the time camefor Paul to go by them and take their alms to Jerusalem, hesent brethren before to make up the bounty which had beenlaid by in store, so that it might be ready when he came.

Therefore, 1 Cor. 16:2 gives no sanction whatever to theidea of meetings on the first day of the week.And now after all his peregrinations in search of the

origin of the first day of the week as the Lord's day, Mr.Elliott arrives at the following intensely logicaldeduction:—

"The selection of the Lord's day by the apostles as theone festival day of the new society seems so obviouslynatural, and even necessary, that when we join to theseconsiderations the fact that it was so employed, we can nolonger deny to the religious use of Sunday the high sanctionof apostolic authority." —P. 198.

All that we shall say to that is, that it is the bestillustration that we have ever seen of the following rule, by"Rev. Levi Philetus Dobbs, D.D.,"— Dr. Wayland, editor

of the National Baptist —for proving something when thereis nothing with which to prove it. In fact we hardlyexpected ever to find in "real life" an illustration of the rule;but Mr. Elliott's five-hundred- [92] dollar-prize logic hasfurnished a perfect illustration of it. The rule is:—



"Prove the premise by the conclusion, and then prove theconclusion by the premise; proving A by B and thenproving B by A. And if the people believe the conclusionalready (or think they do, which amounts to the same

thing), and if you bring in now and then the favorite wordsand phrases that the people all want to hear, and that theyhave associated with orthodoxy, 'tis wonderful what areputation you will get as a logician."

If "Dr. Dobbs" had offered a five-hundred-dollar prizefor the best real example that should be worked out underthat rule, we should give a unanimous, rising, rousing vote

in favor of Rev. George Elliott and his "Abiding Sabbath"as the most deserving of the prize.

Yet with all this he finds "complete silence of the NewTestament so far as any explicit command for the [Sunday]Sabbath or definite rules for its observance are concerned."What! A New Testament institution, and yet in the NewTestament there is neither command nor rules for its

observance!! Then how can it be possible that there canever rest upon anybody any obligation whatever to observeit? How would it be possible anyhow to observe it withoutany rules for its observance? We shall now notice how heaccounts for such an anomaly.




[93]

CHAPTER VIII.

THE COMMANDMENT FOR SUNDAY-KEEPING.

Although the author of "The Abiding Sabbath" findscomplete silence in the New Testament in regard to anycommands or rules for observance of the first day of theweek, yet he insists that the Sunday-sabbath "is establishedas an apostolic institution;" and that "the religious use of

Sunday" has "the high sanction of apostolic authority;" notonly by the example of the apostles, but by their plaincommands—in fact by commands so plain that they cannotbe misunderstood. Thus he says:—

"Preachers of the gospel of the resurrection and foundersof the church of the resurrection, they [the apostles] gave anew, sacred character to the day of the resurrection by their

own example and by their explicit injunctions." —P. 198. Now an "injunction" is, "That which is enjoined; anorder; a command ; a precept ." Enjoin, is "to lay upon, asan order or command; to give a command to; to direct with

authority;" "this word has the force of pressing admonition.It has also the sense of command." "'Explicit' denotessomething which is set forth in the plainest language, sothat it cannot be misunderstood." —Webster. "Explicitinjunctions," then, [94] are commands that are set forthin language so plain that they cannot be misunderstood.Therefore Mr. Elliott's unqualified declaration is that, bycommands so plain that they cannot be misunderstood, theapostles have given a sacred character to Sunday. Buteverybody who ever read the New Testament knows thatthat is not true. And so does Mr. Elliott ; for as already

quoted, on page 184 he plainly confesses "the complete

silence of the New Testament so far as any explicitcommand for the Sabbath or definite rules for itsobservance are concerned." And that by the word"Sabbath" in this place he means the Sunday is undoubted,



because he immediately begins an argument to account forthis "complete silence," and to justify it. But knowing andconfessing as he does, "the complete silence of the NewTestament so far as any explicit command " for the

observance of the first day of the week is concerned, it isimpossible to conceive by what mental process consistentwith honesty, he could bring himself, in less than fifteenpages from these very words, to say that the apostles gave a"sacred character to the day of the resurrection by their ownexample and by their explicit injunctions." Compare pages184 and 198.

And it is by such proofs as this that Sunday is shown tobe the Lord's day and the Christian Sabbath! It is such stuff as this that Professor William Thompson, D. D., ProfessorLlewellyn Pratt, D. D., and Rev. George M. Stone, D. D.,all of Hartford, Conn., "after a careful(?) and thorough(?!)[95] examination" accounted worthy of a prize of fivehundred dollars; and to which, by a copyright, the

American Tract Society has set its seal of orthodoxy; andwhich the Woman's Christian Temperance Union names asone of the books on the Sabbath question which "at least""should be put into every district, Sunday-school, and otherpublic library."

But although he finds this "complete silence," he findsno difficulty in accounting for it; and here is how he doesit:—

"It is not difficult to account for the complete silence of the New Testament so far as any explicit command for theSabbath or definite rules for its observance are concerned. .. . The conditions under which the early Christian church

existed were not favorable for their announcement . . . . Theearly church, a struggling minority composed of the poorestpeople, could not have instituted the Christian Sabbath in

its full force of meaning. The ruling influences of government and society were against them." —P. 184.

Therefore, according to this five-hundred-dollar-prizeChristianity, commandments for the observance of Christian duties can be announced only when the




conditions under which the church exists are favorable totheir announcement; that is, when the ruling influences of government and society are in favor of it. And the one greatdistinguishing institution of Christianity is dependent upon

"the ruling influences of government and society," for "itsfull force and meaning"! Christians can wear the badge of their profession only when the majority favor it! We con-[96] fess that that is in fact the true doctrine of theSunday-sabbath. We have heard it preached often. And weknow that is the doctrine upon which it was based in theorigin of its claim to Christian recognition. But is that the

kind of religion that Christ instituted in the world? Is thatthe manner of "Christian walk and conversation" to whichhe referred when he said: "Enter ye in [strive to enter in] atthe strait gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way,that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go inthereat; because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way,which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it"? Was

it to incite his disciples to faithfulness under the favor of "the ruling influences of government and society" thatChrist said, "The brother shall deliver up the brother todeath, and the father the child; the children shall rise upagainst their parents, and cause them to be put to death.And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake; but hethat endureth to the end shall be saved"? Was it to inducethe "early Christian church" to wait for the sanction of themajority, and the favor of "the ruling influences of government and society," that Christ gave the command,"What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light; andwhat ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the house-tops.And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able tokill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroyboth soul and body in hell"? The fact is that Mr. Elliott's

reason for the "complete silence" of the New Testament inregard to a command for the [97] observance of theSunday, as well as the doctrine of the Sunday-sabbathitself, is contrary to every principle of the doctrine of Christ.






this famous edict, we shall let the author of the "AbidingSabbath" himself tell:—

"The Emperor Constantine was converted, andChristianity became, practically, the religion of the empire.

It was now possible to enforce the Christian Sabbath and make its observance universal. In the year 321,consequently, was issued the famous edict of Constantinecommanding abstinence from servile labor on Sunday. Thefollowing is the full text:—

"'THE EMPEROR CONSTANTINE TO HELPIDIUS.

"'On the venerable day of the sun, let the magistrates andpeople living in towns rest, and let all workshops be closed.Nevertheless, in the country, those engaged in thecultivation of land may freely and lawfully work, because itoften happens that another day is not so well fitted forsowing grain and planting vines; lest by neglect of the best

time, the bounty provided by Heaven should be lost. Giventhe seventh day of March, Crispus and Constantine beingconsuls, both for the second time.'" —P. 228.

[99] The man who can see in the life of Constantine any

evidences of conversion, possesses a degree of penetrationtruly wonderful; equal, indeed to that which can discern"transient elements" where it demonstrates that there arenone. The one act of Constantine which is most nearlyconsistent with the idea of conversion, was performed inMarch, A. D. 313, eight years before the earliest date wehave ever heard claimed for his conversion. That act wasthe edict of Milan, "the great act of toleration," which"confirmed to each individual of the Roman world theprivilege of choosing and professing his own religion," and

stopped the persecution of Christians. But even this one actthat was consistent with conversion, was undone by his"conversion," for soon after his "conversion" the edict of Milan was revoked. We shall name here some of hisprincipal acts after his "conversion:" March 7, A. D. 321,



he issued an edict in honor of the venerable day of the sun.The very next day, March 8, 321, he issued an edictcommanding the consultation of the soothsayers. In 323Licinius was murdered by his orders, in violation of a

solemn oath given to his own sister, Constantia. In 325 heconvoked, and presided at, the Council of Nice. In 326 hewas guilty of the murder of his own son, Crispus, hisnephew, Licinius, and his wife, Fausta, to say nothing of others. In 328 he laid the foundation of Constantinopleaccording to "the ancient ritual of Roman Paganism," andin 330 the city was dedicated to the Virgin Mary. Afterward

he set up in the same city [100] the images of the deitiesof Paganism—Minerva, Cybele, Amphitrite, Pan, and theDelphic Tripod of the oracle of Apollo—"and of all thestatues which were introduced from different quarters nonewere received with greater honor than those of Apollo."But above all, as though he would give to the whole worldthe most abiding proof of his Paganism, he erected a pillar,

over a hundred and twenty feet high, and on the top of it heplaced an image in which he "dared to mingle together theattributes of the Sun of Christ, and of himself." —Milman,

History of Christianity, book 3, chap. 3, par. 7 To the end of his life he continued to imprint the image

of Apollo on one side of his imperial coins, and the name of Christ on the other. In view of these things it may be safelyand sincerely doubted whether he was ever converted at all.And we most decidedly call in question the Christianprinciple that could dwell consistently with a life so largelymade up of heathen practices, and stained with so muchblood.

But to say nothing further on the subject of the"conversion" of Constantine, it is evident from Mr. Elliott'sargument that the "influences of government and society

which were essential to the complete sanctity of the"Christian Sabbath," and for which it was compelled towait nearly three hundred years, were embodied in animperial edict of such a man, in honor —not of the Lord'sday, nor of the Christian Sabbath, nor of Christ, but—of the




venerable day of the sun; that the legislation which was toenforce the "Chris- [101] tian Sabbath," and make itsobservance universal, was a piece of legislation thatenforced the "venerable day of the sun," and made its

observance partial, that is, obligatory upon only the peoplewho lived in towns, and such as worked at trades; whilecountry people might "freely and lawfully work."However, on the nature of this legislation, we needourselves to make no further comment. The author of "TheAbiding Sabbath" exposes it so completely that we canbetter let him do it here. He says:—

"To fully understand the provisions of this legislation,the peculiar position of Constantine must be taken intoconsideration. He was not himself free from all remains of heathen superstition. It seems certain that before hisconversion he had been particularly devoted to the worshipof Apollo, the sun-god. . . . The problem before him was tolegislate for the new faith in such a manner as not to seem

entirely inconsistent with his old practices, and not to comein conflict with the prejudices of his pagan subjects. Thesefacts serve to explain the peculiarities of this decree. Henames the holy day, not the Lord's day, but the 'day of thesun,' the heathen designation, and thus at once seems to

identify it with his former Apollo-worship; he excepts thecountry from the operation of the law, and thus avoidscollision with his heathen subjects." — P. 229.

Now as he had been particularly devoted to the worshipof Apollo, the sun-god; as he shaped this edict so as not tobe inconsistent with his old practices, and not to conflictwith the prejudices of this pagan subjects; as he gives theday its heathen designation, and [102] thus identifies itwith his former Apollo-worship; and as in it he avoidscollision with his heathen subjects; then we should like to

know where in the edict there comes in any legislation forhis Christian subjects. In other words, if he had intended tolegislate solely and entirely for his heathen subjects, and toenjoin a heathen practice, could he have framed an edictthat would more clearly show it than does the one before



us? Impossible. Therefore, by Mr. Elliott's own comments,it is demonstrated that the famous edict of Constantine wasgiven wholly in favor of the heathen, enjoining theobservance of a heathen institution, Sunday, in honor of the

great heathen god, the sun. And if that was to favorChristianity, then so much the worse for the Christianity(?)which it favored. At the very best it could only beheathenism under the name of Christianity. And in fact thatis all it was.

Such is the command, and such its source, that it isseriously proposed shall be observed instead of the holy

commandment of the living God, spoken with a voice thatshook the earth, and twice written with his own blazingfinger upon the enduring stone. Such is the day, and suchits sanctions, that it is proposed shall wholly supplant theday to which have been given "the highest and strongestsanctions possible even to Deity,"—the day upon whichGod rested, which he blessed, which he sanctified, and

which he has distinctly commanded us to keep, saying,"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." "The seventh

day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt[103] not do any work." The observance of the seventhday is that which we, by the word of God, urge upon theconscience of every man. But if we had no better reasonsfor it than are given in this five-hundred-dollar-prize essay,or than we have ever seen given, for the observance of Sunday, we should actually be ashamed ever to put our pento paper to advocate it.




[104]

CHAPTER IX.

THE FATHERS, ETC.

As we have shown, the author of the "Abiding Sabbath"fills up, with the heathen edict of Constantine for the partialobservance of Sunday, the blank left by "the completesilence of the New Testament" so far as any command orrules on that subject are concerned; yet his system is not

complete without the sanction of the Fathers. So, as is thecustom of the advocates of Sunday observance, he gives tothe Fathers, the Councils, the popes, and the Catholicsaints, a large place in his five-hundred-dollar-prizeargument for Sunday keeping. We have before cited one of the rules laid down by the Rev. Levi Philetus Dobbs, D. D.,for proving a thing when there is nothing with which to

prove it, and have given an example from the "AbidingSabbath" in illustration of the rule. We here present anotherof the Doctor's rules, and in Mr. Elliott's treatment of theFathers, our readers can see its application. Says Dr.Dobbs:—

"I regard, however, a judicious use of the Fathers asbeing, on the whole, the best reliance for anyone who is inthe situation of my querist. The advantages of the Fathersare twofold: first, they carry a good deal of weight with themasses; and secondly, you can find whatever you want inthe Fathers. I [105] don't believe that any opinion couldbe advanced so foolish, so manifestly absurd, but that youcan find passages to sustain it, on the pages of thesevenerable stagers. And to the common mind, one of these is just as good as another. If it happens that the point you

want to prove is one that never chanced to occur to theFathers, why, you can easily show that they would havetaken your side if they had only thought of the matter. Andif, perchance, there is nothing bearing even remotely orconstructively on the point, don't be discouraged; get a



good strong quotation and put the name of the Fathers to it,and utter it with an air of triumph; it will be all just as well;nine-tenths of the people don't stop to ask whether aquotation bears on the matter in hand. Yes, my brother, the

Fathers are your stronghold. They are Heaven's best gift tothe man who has a cause that can't be sustained in any

other way." (See Appendix.)The first of the Fathers to whom Mr. Elliott refers is

Clement of Rome, who he says died about A. D. 100. FromClement he quotes a passage which says nothing about anyparticular day, much less does it say that Sunday is the

Lord's day, or the "abiding Sabbath," and of it the author of the "Abiding Sabbath" says:—

"This passage does not indeed refer by name to theLord's day, but it proves conclusively the existence at thattime of prescribed seasons of worship, and asserts theirappointment by the Saviour himself." —P. 214.

But for all it mentions no day, it is, says he, an

"important link in the argument" that proves that Sunday isthe Lord's day and of "perpetual obliga- [106] tion." Anargument in which such a thing as that is counted "animportant link," must be sorely pushed to find a connectionthat will hold it up.

His next link is no better. This time he proposes aquotation from Ignatius, and of it says:—

"The passage is obscure, and the text doubtless corrupt,but the trend of meaning is not indistinct." —P. 215, note.

It seems to us that an institution that has to be supportedby an argument that is dependent upon a "trend of meaning," drawn from an "obscure passage," in a "corrupttext," is certainly of most questionable authority. True, hesays "the argument can do without it if necessary;" but it isparticularly to be noticed that his argument does not do

without it, and he deems it of sufficient importance todevote more than a page of his book to its consideration.We would remark, also, that we have never yet seen norheard an extended argument for the Sunday institution thatdid do without it.




His next quotation is from a writing of about equal valuewith this of Ignatius. He says:—

"Here may be introduced a quotation from the so-calledEpistle of Barnabas. . . . The external evidence of the

authorship of this writing would be convincing but for thediscredit which its internal characters casts upon it." —Pp.

216, 217, note. That is to say, we might consider this epistle genuine if

the writing itself did not show the contrary. And as if tomake as strong as possible the doubt of its genuineness, headds:—

[107] "There is a very close relationship between this writing

and the 'Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.'"And to the "Teaching" he refers by the doubting phrase,

"if genuine." Well let us see what this "Teaching" is worth.We need not go outside of the document itself tosuccessfully impeach its credit in the estimation of all

people who have any regard for the rights of property. Wehere make the distinct charge that the document entitled"The Teaching of the Apostles," plainly teaches that it is

right to steal. Proof: in Chapter I we find these words: "If one that is in need taketh, he shall be guiltless." And toshow that it is theft that is meant, we have but to read righton: "But he that is not in need shall give account whereof he took and whereunto; and being in durance [imprisonment] shall be questioned touching what he did,and he shall not go out thence until he give back the lastfarthing."

According to this precious document then all that isrequisite is to be "in need," and then if he "taketh, he shallbe guiltless." A man is sorely in need of a suit of clothes;he "taketh" one and "shall be guiltless." Another is in need

of a horse; he "taketh," and "shall be guiltless." Another isin great need of bread; he "taketh" a sack of flour, and"shall be guiltless;" and so on to the end of the catalogue.How the socialists, the communists, the nihilists, and theanarchists generally, may be glad and shout for joy, and



fling their ready caps in air at sight of "The Teaching of theApostles," this wondrous screed, this last, best gift to therascals!

[108]

Well may Mr. Elliott attach to this document the savingclause "if genuine." But why should he want to receive anduse it, as he does, even with that qualification? Does he notknow that such is not the genuine teaching of the apostles?Oh, yes, of course he does, but in this precious documentthere is a phrase that can be made to do duty in support of Sunday as the Lord's day, and that blessed consideration

sanctifies all else, even to its tenets sanctioning theft. Andbetween "the so-called Epistle of Barnabas" and thisdocument "there is a very close relationship"! We do notdoubt it in the least. But there is no relationship at allbetween either of these productions and the genuineteaching of the apostles. No, such is not the teaching of theapostles of Christ; but it shows how very degenerate the

Christianity of the day has become, when it receives sogladly, and extols so highly, as the veritable teaching of theSpirit of God, a production that is a shame to man.

Then after mention of Pliny's letter to Trajan, JustinMartyr, Melito, the "Teaching," and Irenaeus, he comes toClement of Alexandria, of whom he speaks as follows:—

"Clement of Alexandria, A. D. 194, in a mysticalexposition of the fourth commandment, in the midst of fanciful speculations on the religious signification of numbers, comes down long enough from the loftier flightsof his spiritual arithmetic to tell us that the seventh day of the law has given place to the eighth day of the gospel. . . Nobody, of course, can tell what far-fetched and unheard-

of meanings may lie [109] underneath the words of thegood semi-Gnostic Father; but as far as his testimony goes,

it helps to establish the fact that the first day of the week filled the same place in the minds of the church of thattime, that the seventh day had occupied in the Jewishsystem." —P. 223.

Certainly. It matters not what "mystical expositions," nor




what "fanciful interpretations," nor what "far-fetched andunheard-of meanings" there may be, they all "help toestablish" the heathen institution of Sunday, in the place of the day made holy and commanded to be kept so, by the

Creator of the heavens and the earth.With just one more witness he closes the second century.

And it is most fittingly done, as follows:—"This century will be concluded with the mention of that

most brilliant and erratic of all the ante-Nicene Christianwriters, Tertullian, of Carthage. . . This vehement writerfitly closes this list of evidences of the honored place filled

by the Lord's day in the first two centuries of the Christianchurch." —Pp. 223, 224.

Fitly, indeed, does this "vehement writer," and mosterratic of all the ante-Nicene Fathers, close the list of thefirst two centuries. But what a list! He gives us a list of tenwitnesses to prove that Sunday is the Lord's day, and that itwas observed as such in the first two centuries, and by his

own words it is shown that the first one does not mentionthe day at all; the second is an obscure passage in a corrupttext; the third is doubtful; the fourth speaks only of [110] a "stated day," without giving it any title at all; the fifth"calls it by its heathen name;" the seventh is doubtful butteaches that men may steal if they are in need; the ninth isso mystical, so fanciful, that "nobody can tell what far-fetched and unheard-of meanings may lie underneath hiswords;" the tenth is the "most brilliant and erratic [havingno certain course; roaming about without a fixeddestination] of all," and this "vehement ["furious; violent;impetuous; passionate; ardent; hot"] writer,"—we do notwonder that Dean Milman calls him "this fiery African"—this witness "fitly closes the list of evidences of the honoredplace filled by the Lord's day in the first two centuries!"

Well we should say so. But what is a point worth that is"proved" by such evidences? It is worth all that theSunday-sabbath is, which is supported by it, and that is—nothing. Yet these are the only witnesses that can be called,and false, doubtful, and untrustworthy though they be, they



must be used or the Sunday institution will fail. Butwhether the failure would be any greater without suchproofs than with them, we leave the reader to decide. Andthat is part of the argument for the obligation of Sunday,

that was accounted worth a prize of five hundred dollars!We should like very much to see an argument on thatquestion which that committee of award would consider tobe worth nothing.

After this array of five-hundred-dollar-prize witnessesfor Sunday, we hope our readers will justify [111] us indeclining to follow Mr. Elliott through a further list,

composed of Origen, and Athanasius, Theodosius theGreat, and Emperor Leo the Thracian, and a number of Catholic saints, such as Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine,"Chrysostom the golden-mouthed," and Jerome, "the foul-mouthed" ( Mosheim, Cent. 4, part 2, chap. 2, last par. but

one); through the Councils of Nice, Sardica, Gangra,Antioch, First of Toledo, Fourth of Carthage, and that of

Laodicaea, and so on down to the Synod of Dort, and theWestminster Assembly.Yet his work on this division of his subject would be

incomplete, and out of harmony with his method of argument throughout, if he should not turn about and upsetit all. Accordingly, therefore, he at once destroys the edificewhich he has thus so laboriously erected. Among thedangers which threaten the Sunday institution of to-day hedeclares that:—

"Dangerous is the substitution of the dictum of thechurch for the warrant of Holy Scripture. . . To make theLord's day only an ecclesiastical contrivance, is to give noassurance to the moral reason, and to lay no obligationupon a free conscience. The church cannot maintain this

institution by its own edict . Council, assembly,

convocation, and synod can impose a law on the conscienceonly when they are able to back their decree with 'Thus

saith the Lord .'"—P. 263.The only dictum that the author of "The Abiding

Sabbath" has shown for the Sunday-sabbath is the dictum





[113]

CHAPTER X.

"THE CHANGE OF DAY."

Under the title of "The Change of Day," the author of "The Abiding Sabbath" devotes a chapter to the denial of the right of the seventh day to be considered the Sabbath;and he starts with the attempt to make a distinction betweenthe Sabbath as an institution, and the Sabbath as the name

of a day. He says:—"Let it be urged that the Sabbath as an institution, and

the Sabbath as the name of a day, are entirely distinct." —P.

201. This is a turn that is quite commonly taken by those who

deny that the seventh day is the Sabbath, but we wish thatsome of those who think they see this distinction, would

describe what they call the "institution." We wish theywould tell us what it is. We wish they would tell us how the"institution" was made, and how it can be observed distinctfrom the day. For says Mr. Elliott:—

"The particular day is no essential part of theinstitution." —P. 203.

If, therefore, the day be no essential part of theinstitution, it follows that the institution can be observedwithout reference to the day; and so we say [114] weshould like for Mr. Elliott, or someone else who thinks theproposition correct, to tell us how that can be done. But Mr.Elliott does not believe the proposition, nor does anyoneelse whom we have ever known to state it. In his argumentunder this very proposition that, "The particular day is noessential part of the institution," Mr. Elliott says:—

"Without doubt, the spiritual intent of the Sabbath willfail of full realization except all men unite upon one day." — Id.

Then what his argument amounts to is just this: Theparticular day is no essential part of the institution, yet the




institution will fail of proper realization unless all uniteupon a particular day. In other words, the particular day isan essential part of the institution. And that is exactly whereeveryone lands who starts with this proposition. But it is

not enough to say that the day is an essential part of theinstitution. The day is the institution, and the institution isthe day. And if the particular day be taken away, theinstitution is destroyed. The commandment of God is not,Remember the Sabbath institution, to keep it holy. Nor is itmerely, Remember the Sabbath, as though it weresomething indefinite. But it is plainly, "Remember the

Sabbath day, to keep it holy." Ex. 20:8. The word of Godis not that he blessed the Sabbath institution, and hallowedit. But the word is, "The Lord blessed the Sabbath day, andhallowed it." Ex. 20:11.

Nor is it left to men to select, and unite upon, some[115] "one day" to be the Sabbath. The Lord not onlycommands men to remember the Sabbath day, to keep it

holy, but he also tells them, as plainly as language can tell,that "the seventh day is the Sabbath." It is the seventh daythat God blessed at creation. It is the seventh day that hethen sanctified. It is the seventh day upon which he rested.Gen. 2:2, 3. It was the rest, the blessing, and thesanctification of the seventh day that made the institution of the Sabbath. And it is simply the record of a fact, when theLord wrote on the table of stone, "The seventh day is theSabbath." Suppose the question should be asked, What isthe Sabbath? As the word of God is true, the only trueanswer that can be given is, "The seventh day is theSabbath." Therefore it is as plain as words can make it, thatapart from the seventh day there is no Sabbath; and thatapart from the seventh day there is no Sabbath institution.

Again, the word Sabbath means rest , and with this Mr.

Elliott agrees; he says:—"The word 'Sabbath' is the one used in the fourth

commandment; it means 'rest,' and it is the substantive formof the verb employed in Gen. 2:2, 3, also Ex. 31 : 17, todescribe the divine resting after creation." —P. 202.



But God did not bless the rest , he blessed the rest day;he did not hallow the rest, he hallowed the rest day. Thatrest day was the seventh day, the last day of the week. "Andhe rested on the seventh day from all his work which he

had made. And God [116] blessed the seventh day andsanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all hiswork which God created and made." Did God rest any dayof the week but the seventh day? Assuredly not. Then isnot the seventh day the rest day of God? Most certainly.Then whenever anybody calls any day the Sabbath but theseventh day—the last day of the week—he not only

contradicts the plain word of God but he also contradictsthe very language in which he himself speaks, because hegives the title of "rest" to that which by no possibility cantruthfully bear it. The word of God is the truth, and it says,"The seventh day is the Sabbath [rest] of the Lord thy God;in it thou shalt not do any work."

Yet in the face of his own reference to Gen. 2:2, 3, and

Ex. 31 : 17, the author of the "Abiding Sabbath" has theassurance to write the following:—"As a human monument the particular day has value, but

it has no bearing on that divine ordinance of rest andworship which comes to us out of eternity and blends againwith it at the end of time."—P. 203. 0116 paragraph 3

"As a human monument?" How did the particularday—the seventh day—in Gen. 2:2, 3 become a humanmonument? What human being had anything to do withthe erection of that monument? It was God who set up thatmonument, and when an institution established by the Lordhimself, can be called a human monument, we should liketo know how much further a five-hundred-dollar prizewould not justify a man in going.

[117]

And again, "The particular day has no bearing upon thatdivine ordinance which comes to us out of eternity." This,too, when the particular day is that divine ordinance. If theparticular day has no bearing upon that divine ordinance of rest and worship which comes to us out of eternity, then




what is the ordinance, and how can it be observed? Thisbrings him again to the important concession that, "all menmust unite upon one day," or else the Sabbath will fail of itsproper realization. But we would ask, Did not the Lord

know that when he made the Sabbath? Did he not knowthat it is necessary that all men should unite upon one day?We are certain that he did, and that he made ampleprovision for it. He himself selected the day which shouldbe the Sabbath. He rested a certain definite day, he blessedthat day, and he set it apart from the other days of the week,and he commanded man—the human race—to remember

that day, and to do no work therein. That day is the last dayof the week, the seventh day, and not the first day of theweek. But the day which the Lord has chosen to be theSabbath; the day which he has put honor upon; the daywhich he has by his own divine words and acts set apartfrom all other days; the day which he by his own voicefrom Heaven has commanded to be kept holy; that day

which he has called his own—is to be set aside by men asnot essential, and a heathen institution, by the authority of aheathen commandment, exalted to the place of the Lord'sday, and as all-essential. But it is wickedness.

[118] Like the majority of people who keep Sunday, the author

of the "Abiding Sabbath" finds great difficulty in fixing theday, when the Sabbath of the Lord—the seventh day—isunder discussion, but not the least difficulty when the firstday of the week is to be pointed out. He inquires:—

"When does the day commence and end? Shall wedefine, as in the first chapter of Genesis, that the 'eveningand morning' make a day, and therefore reckon from sunsetto sunset, as did the Puritans? or shall we keep the civilday, from midnight to midnight?" —P. 204.

To those who regard the word of God as of anyauthority, we should think the day as defined in the firstchapter of Genesis would be sufficient, and that thereforethey would reckon the day as the Bible does, and as Mr.Elliott knows how to do, that is, "from sunset to sunset."



But those who choose a heathen institution —Sunday—instead of the institution of God—the Sabbath day—weshould expect to find reckoning as the heathen did, that is,"from midnight to midnight." And nothing more plainly

marks the heathen origin of the Sunday institution, and theheathen authority for its observance, than does the fact thatit is reckoned from midnight to midnight. If the religiousobservance of Sunday had been introduced by the apostles,or enjoined by any authority of God, it would have beenobserved and reckoned as the Bible gives the reckoning,from sunset to sunset. But instead of that, the Sunday

institution bears Rome on its very face. Rome from herbeginning reckoned the day [119] from midnight tomidnight. Sunday was the great heathen Roman day; andwhen by the working of the "mystery of iniquity," andConstantine's heathen edict, and his political, hypocriticalconversion, this "wild solar holiday of all pagan times" wasmade the great papal Roman day, it was still essentially the

same thing; and so it is yet. However much Protestants maydress it up, and call it the "Christian Sabbath," and the"Lord's day," the fact still remains that the Lord nevercalled it his day; that there is nothing about it eitherSabbatic or Christian, for the Lord never rested on it, andChrist never gave any direction whatever in regard to it;and that it rests essentially upon human authority, and that of heathen origin.

Now he says:—"As a concession to that human weakness which is

troubled after eighteen centuries' drill in spiritual religion,about the particular day of the week to be honored, thequestion will be fairly met." —P. 205.

Remember, he has promised that the question shall "befairly met." And the proposition with which he starts in

fulfillment of that promise, is this:—"There is no possible means of fixing the day of the

original Sabbath." —Ib. Let us see. The Scripture says at the close of the six days

employed in creation, that God "rested on the seventh day




from all his work which he had made;" that he "blessed theseventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he hadrested." Gen. 2: [120] 2, 3. In the fourth commandment,God spoke and wrote with direct reference to the day upon

which he rested from creation, and pointed out that day asthe one upon which the people should rest, saying: "Theseventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thoushalt not do any work. . . . For [because] in six days theLord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is,and rested the seventh day; wherefore [for this reason] theLord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." Therefore

nothing can be plainer than that God, in the fourthcommandment, pointed out distinctly "the day of theoriginal Sabbath." The word of God says also that the daythe Saviour lay in the grave certain persons "rested theSabbath day according to the commandment ." Luke 23:56.The Sabbath day according to the commandment, is the dayof the original Sabbath. When those persons rested the

Sabbath day according to the commandment, they restedthe day of the original Sabbath. Therefore the day of theoriginal Sabbath is fixed by the word of God to the daywhich followed the crucifixion of the Saviour. And thatsame word declares that the day which followed this day of the original Sabbath, was the first day of the week. Mr.Elliott finds no difficulty at all in fixing the first day of theweek—the day of the resurrection of the Saviour. But theday of the original Sabbath is the day which immediatelyprecedes the first day of the week. Therefore, as Mr. Elliottfinds it not only possible but easy to fix the first day of theweek, how [121] can it be that he finds it impossible tofix the day of the original Sabbath, which immediatelyprecedes the first day of the week?

But our author proceeds to argue the proposition, and

this is how he begins:—"Who can tell on what day of the week the first man was

created?" —Ib. Shall we grant Mr. Elliott's implied meaning, and

conclude that he does not know on what day of the week



the first man was created? Not at all; for within eight linesof this question, he begins to tell us of the day on whichman first existed. He says:—

"For the sake, however, of any literalists who still

believe that the work of creation began on Sunday eve, andended Friday at sunset, it may be suggested that the seventh

day of creation was the first day of man's existence."There, reader, you have it. He himself knows what day

of the week the first man was created. For as "the seventhday of creation was man's first day of existence," it followsinevitably that man must have been created on the seventh

day, unless indeed he supposes that man was created oneday and did not exist till another! But who ever beforeheard of "the seventh day of creation"?! We cannotimagine where he ever learned of such a thing. Never fromthe Bible, certainly; for the Bible tells of only six days of creation. The first chapter of Genesis gives the record of thesix days of creation; and in the fourth commandment God

declares, "In six days the [122] Lord made heaven andearth, the sea, and all that in them is." The Bible tellsplainly that man was created on the sixth day. But lo, Mr.Elliott finds seven days of creation, and that the seventhday of creation was the first day of man's existence!! Whata wonderful thing a five-hundred-dollar-prize essay is! Itbrings such large returns of nonsense for such a smallinvestment of wisdom!

Well, what is Mr. Elliott's conclusion from this line of argument? Here it is:—

"If he [man] began the calculation of the week from thattime, and kept the same Sabbath with his Maker, then thefirst day of the week, and not the seventh, was the primitiveand patriarchal Sabbath. If a crude, bald literalism is to bethe rule of interpretation, let us follow it boldly, no matter

where it takes us." —P. 206. We should say that if crude, bald nonsense is to

characterize the argument by which the Sunday-sabbath issupported, then the essay entitled "The Abiding Sabbath" isfully entitled to the five-hundred-dollar prize which it





impossible for God to lie.The seventh day, the Sabbath of the Lord, rests upon

facts, and it is impossible to change facts. Fact is from factum—that which is done. When a thing has been done, it

will remain a fact to all eternity. To all eternity it willremain the truth that it was done. It may be undone, yet thefact remains that it was done. No power in the universe canchange a fact. It is a fact that in six days God created theheavens and the earth, and all things that are therein. Thiscan never cease to be a fact. This earth might be relegatedagain to chaos, yet the fact would remain that in six days

God did create it. It would likewise remain a fact that theLord worked each of the six days. And as long as this worldstands, which was created in these six days, so long will itremain impossible truthfully to call any one of these sixdays the Sabbath, that is, the rest day, because there standsthe fact that the Lord worked, and, we repeat, he himself cannot call that a rest day in which he worked. It is likewise

a fact that God did rest the seventh day. That can nevercease to be the truth. Though the whole creation which Godcreated should be blotted out, it would still remain the factthat God did rest the seventh day. And as long as thecreation stands, so long the truth stands that the seventh dayis the rest day, the Sabbath of the Creator; and that noneother can be. Therefore it is the simple, plain, demonstratedtruth that the sev- [125] enth day of the week, and thatday only of all in the week, is the Sabbath of the Lord; andthat while creation stands it cannot be changed.

There is, however, a way, and only one conceivableway, in which the Sabbath could be changed; that is, asexpressed by Alexander Campbell, by creation being gone

through with again. Let us take Mr. Campbell's conceptionand suppose that creation is to be gone through with again

for the purpose of changing the Sabbath; and suppose thatthe present creation is turned once more to chaos. Increating again, the Lord could of course employ as many,or as few, days as he pleased, according to the day whichhe designed to make the Sabbath. If he should employ nine




days in the work of creation, and rest the tenth day, then thetenth day would be of course the Sabbath. Or, if he shouldemploy eight days or seven days in creation and rest theninth or the eighth, as the case might be, that day would be

the Sabbath. Or he might employ five days in creation andrest the sixth, then the sixth day would be the Sabbath; oremploy four days, and rest the fifth; or three days, and restthe fourth; or two days, and rest the third ; or one day, andrest the second . Then the fifth, the fourth, the third, or thesecond day, as the case might be, would be the Sabbath.

But suppose it should be designed to make the first day

the Sabbath. Could it be done? Not possibly. For supposeall things were created in one day, the day on whichcreation was performed would necessa- [126] rily, and of itself, be the first day: therefore the rest day, the Sabbath,could not possibly be earlier than the second day. The firstday could not possibly be both a working day and a restday. It matters not though only a portion of the day should

be employed in the work , it would effectually destroy thepossibility of its being a rest day. So upon the hypothesis of a new creation, and upon that hypothesis alone, it isconceivable that the Sabbath could be changed; but evenupon that hypothesis, it would be literally impossible tochange the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day.

People will talk and write glibly about the change of theSabbath, never pausing to consider what is involved in theidea; never considering that heaven and earth would have tobe removed before such a thing could be done. Even asChrist said, "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, thanone tittle of the law to fail." And, "Till heaven and earthpass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from thelaw." In the prophecy which foretold this attempt of "theman of sin" to change the Sabbath, the word is not that he

should change the law, but that, "He shall think to changetimes and laws" of the Most High. This might be expectedof the power that should oppose and exalt himself aboveGod (2 Thess. 2:3, 4); and it is perfectly in keeping with hischaracter that in his thought to change the Sabbath of the



Lord, he should select the very day—the first day—towhich, above all others, it would be impossible for the Lordhimself to change the Sabbath.

[127]

We now take our leave of Mr. Elliott and his prize essay;to pursue the subject further would only be to multiplynotices of nonsense. In closing, we would simply repeat theremarks already made, that, in consideration of the fact thatthe Committee of Award decided that this essay wasworthy of a prize of five hundred dollars, we should verymuch like to see an essay on this subject which that

committee would decide to be worth nothing. If this essaystands as one of the best arguments for the Sunday-sabbath(and this it certainly does by taking the aforesaid prize, andby its receiving the endorsement of the American TractSociety by a copyright) then the Sunday institution must bein a most sorry plight. And if we had no better reasons forcalling the people to the observance of the Sabbath of the

Lord—the seventh day—than those that are given in thisprize essay for Sunday-keeping, we should actually beashamed ever to urge anybody to keep it.

As for us, we choose to obey the word of God ratherthan the word of men. We choose to rest the day in whichhe has commanded us to rest. We choose to hallow the daywhich he has hallowed. We choose to keep holy the daywhich he has made holy, and which he has commanded allmen to keep holy.

Reader, "God did rest the seventh day from all hisworks." Heb. 4:4. What are you going to do? God says,Remember the rest day, to keep it holy. Ex. 20:8. What areyou going to do? God says, "The seventh day is theSabbath [the rest] of the [128] Lord thy God; in it thou

shalt not do any work ." Ex. 20:10. What are you going to

do?The word of God is truth. All his commandments are

truth. Ps. 119:151. When God has spoken, that word mustbe accepted as the truth, and all there is then to do is toobey the word as he has spoken it. "It shall be our




righteousness if we observe to do all these commandmentsbefore the Lord our God as he hath commanded us."Nothing is obedience but to do what the Lord says, as he

says it . He says, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the

Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." Todisregard the day which God has commanded to be kept, isdisobedience. And the disobedience is not in the slightestrelieved by the substitution of another day for the onewhich the Lord has fixed, even though that other day bestyled "Christian." The fact is that the seventh day is theSabbath; and in the fast-hastening Judgment the question

will be, Have you kept it? God is now calling out a peoplewho will keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. Nothing but that will answer. Neither commandmentof God nor faith of Jesus ever enjoined the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week. Both commandment of God and faith of Jesus show the everlasting obligation tokeep the seventh day, the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.

Will you obey God? Will you keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus?



[I]

APPENDIX.

By special request we insert the whole of Dr. Dobbs'sletter, with the one which called it out.

"To the Reverend Dr. Dobbs—"VENERATED MAN: I rejoice that in you wisdom has

its seat, and that you are a sort of plug, so to speak, towhich we may, as it were, bring our little pails and dippersto get a supply. Now I am a public speaker, a teacher of

morals; in a word, to come right to the point, I am apreacher of the gospel. But I have my troubles; the chief of them is this: I often am compelled to prove somethingwhen I haven't got anything to prove it with. What shall Ido? how shall I argue without any arguments?

"Pray relieve me, and accept my undying gratitude."Yours with remote veneration,

"A FEEBLE BROTHER."

REPLY."I am happy to say that I have bestowed a good deal of

thought on this very point. In fact, here is the very test of real genius. Any person, however frugally divineProvidence has dealt by him, can argue if he has anythingto argue on; but it takes a master mind to argue on nothing.But it can be done. I have often done it; in fact, 'tis myhabitual method.

"Taking the thing to be proved for the proof, is a goodway. Thus, it is desired to prove that A is B. You can proveit thus: "It is universally acknowledged (by all but infidelsand radicals) that A is B; hence we see that necessarily A isB, which is the thing that we set out to prove.' Of course,

you would not put it just in that bare shape before anaudience; I have given you the essence of it; you must dressit up. Thus, you want to prove that the soul is immortal;you prove it thus: 1. The spirit is indestructible. 2. Theimmaterial part of man is not capable of dissolution; hence,




then, we see that the soul is immortal. Prop- [II] erlyused, arranged in the flowing robes of ample speech, this isreally one of the most effective forms of argument that Iknow.

"Another, almost equally good, is proving the premiseby the conclusion, and then proving the conclusion by thepremise, proving A by B, and then proving B by A. And if the people believe the conclusion already (or think they do,which amounts to the same thing), and if you bring in nowand then the favorite words and phrases that the people allwant to hear, and that they have associated with orthodoxy,

'tis wonderful what a reputation you will get as a logician."Proving one thing clearly and conclusively, and then

skillfully assuming that you have proved something else, isa master stroke.

"I regard, however, a judicious use of the Fathers asbeing, on the whole, the best reliance for anyone who is inthe situation of my querist. The advantages of the Fathers

are twofold: First, they carry a good deal of weight withthe masses; and second, you can find whatever you want inthe Fathers. I don't believe that any opinion could beadvanced so foolish, so manifestly absurd, but that you canfind passages to sustain it on the pages of these venerablestagers. And to the common mind, one of these is just asgood as another.

"If it happen that the point you want to prove is one thatnever chanced to occur to the Fathers, why, you can easilyshow that they would have taken your side if they had onlythought of the matter. And if, perchance, there is nothingbearing even remotely or constructively on the point, don'tbe discouraged; get a good, strong quotation and put thename of the Fathers to it, and utter it with an air of triumph;it will be all just as well; nine-tenths of the people don't

stop to ask whether a quotation bears on the matter in hand.Yes, my brother, the Fathers are your stronghold; they areHeaven's best gift to the man who has a cause that can't besustained in any other way." —National Baptist, March 7,

1878.



[131]

THE $1,000 PRIZE ESSAY.




[132] [Blank page]



[133]

"THE LORD'S DAY."

CHAPTER I.

THE INSTITUTION OF THE SABBATH.

Since we began the review of the foregoing prize essay,

we have received another on the same subject, and withexactly the same design. This too is a prize essay. Not afive-hundred-dollar, but a one-thousand-dollar prize essay.It was written in 1884 by "A. E. Waffle, M. A., [then]Professor of Rhetoric and English Literature in LewisburgUniversity, Lewisburg, Pa." The prize of one thousanddollars was awarded "after a painstaking and protracted

examination," by the Committee of Publication of theAmerican Sunday-school Union; the award was approvedby the Board of the Union; and the essay was printed andcopyrighted by the Union in 1885. It makes a book of 418pages, and is printed under the title of "The Lord's Day; ItsUniversal and Perpetual Obligation."

The author of this book treats the subject in three parts.Part I he devotes to proving the necessity of the Sabbath, byshowing that it is necessary to man's physical, hisintellectual, his moral and religious, and his social welfare.In Part II he discusses the proposition that "the Sabbath of the Bible was made for all men." In Part III he considers"the nature and im- [134] portance of the Sabbath." Weshall not notice the work in detail because the ground hasbeen mostly covered in our review of "The Abiding

Sabbath." About all that we shall do with this book will beto notice the reasons that are given for keeping Sunday, aswe want the people to become thoroughly acquainted withthe kind of reasoning that draws five-hundred-dollar prizes,and one-thousand-dollar prizes, in proof that Sunday is the




Sabbath. We need to make no apology for following up thissubject. For certainly a subject to which is devoted so muchhigh-priced discussion, is worthy of notice to any extent towhich that discussion may run; more especially when in it

there are involved moral and religious principles uponwhich turn eternal destinies.

The following is a synopsis of chapter 6, Mr. Waffle'sargument on the early institution of the Sabbath:

"Our first argument is founded upon the fact that theSabbath was instituted at the beginning of human history. . .. In the first three verses of the second chapter of Genesis,

we read: 'Thus the heavens and the earth were finished,and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God endedhis work which he had made and he rested on the seventhday from all his work which he had made. And God blessedthe seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he hadrested from all his work which God created and made.' . . .The nature of this early Sabbath is hinted at in the words

which record its institution. God rested from the work of creation. This is evidently meant to teach men that on theseventh day they are to cease from secu- [135] lar toil,and rest. . . . This idea is more fully developed in thestatement that God blessed and sanctified the seventh day. .. . Sanctifying the day means that God set it apart as a dayto be devoted to holy uses. It could have no higher use thanto keep man near to his God and to cultivate his moral andreligious nature. . . . It is hardly possible to avoid theconclusion that a Sabbath, on which men rested fromsecular toil and engaged in the worship of God, wasinstituted at the beginning of human history. Just as the lawof marriage and the law of property are older than thedecalogue, so the law of the Sabbath, having its origin inthe needs of man and in the benevolence and wisdom of

God, was given to the first man, and but repeated andemphasized on Sinai. . . . The bearing of this conclusionupon the general discussion will be readily perceived. If theSabbath did have this early origin, it was given to the wholerace, and should be observed by every human being. . . .



The moral law itself is not done away in Christ; no moreare the things before it which God made obligatory uponman. Unless it can be shown that the law of the Sabbath,given at the creation, has been repealed by a new legislative

act of God, it is still binding upon all men who learn of it.For, coming at this time, it was not given to one man or toone nation, but to the whole human family."

That is the exact truth, well stated. The Sabbath wasinstituted at the beginning of human history. The first threeverses of the second chapter of Genesis are evidently meantto teach men that on the seventh day they are to cease from

secular toil, and rest. And it is indeed true that, unless it canbe shown that the law of the Sabbath given at creation, hasbeen repealed by a [136] new legislative act of God, it isstill binding upon all men who learn of it. And that it hasnot been repealed, that there has been no new legislative actof God, neither by himself, nor by Christ, nor by theapostles, Mr. Waffle shows conclusively. After proving the

Sabbath to be a part of the moral law, he advancesargument to show that "the law of the Sabbath has neverbeen repealed," from which we shall present a fewpassages, from chapter 8. He says:—

"If the conclusions of the preceding chapter are just, thelaw of the Sabbath can never be abrogated . So far as it is amoral law it must remain binding upon all men while theworld stands. . . . We assert that the law of the Sabbath, sofar as it is a moral law, has never been annulled. A law canbe repealed only by the same authority that enacted it. Itcertainly cannot be done away by those who are subject toit. If the law of the Sabbath, as it appeared in the ten

commandments, has been abolished, it must have been doneby some decree of Jehovah. Where have we the record of such a decree? Through what prophet or apostle was it

spoken? . . . . We can find no words of Christ derogatory tothis institution [the Sabbath] as it was originallyestablished, or as it was intended to be observed. All hisutterances on the subject were for the purpose of removingmisapprehensions or of correcting abuses. It is strange that




he should take so much pains to establish the Sabbath upona proper foundation and promote right views of it, if he hadany intention of doing away with the institution altogether. .. . The same is true of his actions. There is no record that he

ever did anything upon the Sabbath not consistent with itspurposes from the beginning. He healed the sick; [137] but works of mercy on that day were never forbiddenexcept in the rabbinical perversions of the Sabbath. . . .

"It is fair to conclude that Christ never intended toabolish the Sabbath. The only conceivable ground for sucha statement is the fact that he opposed the notions of it

prevalent in his time. But his efforts to correct these furnishthe best evidence that he was desirous of preserving thetrue Sabbath. He said that it became him to 'fulfill allrighteousness.' He voluntarily placed himself under thelaw, including the law of the Sabbath. Thus he not onlymaintained the sacredness of the Sabbath by his words, buthe also kept it as an example for us. . . .

"But do the apostles teach that the fourth commandmentis no longer in force; that it is not binding upon Christians?It is asserted by many that they do, and appeals are made totheir epistles to maintain the assertion. . . . Paul says:'Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy,and just, and good.' How could he have given it higherpraise? And this he says just after the declaration, 'We aredelivered from the law.' Does he mean that we aredelivered from that which is 'holy, and just, and good,' andthat we are henceforth to disregard the things required inthe law? Not at all. He simply means that we are freedfrom the penalty and the bondage of the law. Again hesays: 'Do we then make void the law through faith? Godforbid; yea, we establish the law.' Here his meaningobviously is that the law is not only honored by the

redemption through Christ, but is established in the mindsof those who through faith enjoy this redemption, faithgiving ability to appreciate its excellence, and power joyfully to obey it. But he is even more specific. When hewants a summary of our duties to our fellow- [138] men,



he can do no better than to take the second table of the law.Rom. 13:8-10. . . . Paul was hardly so inconsistent as toquote thus from a law which had been abrogated as a ruleof life.

"He is not alone in this practice. St. James says:'Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point , he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commitadultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit noadultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.' What of it, if the law is annulled? It does notmatter if we violate obsolete laws. But James would have

said that these laws were still binding, and that no one of them could be violated with impunity. His main point is theintegrity of the law—the impossibility of wrenching outone of its members without destroying all. The way inwhich Paul and James and Peter and John urge upon theChristians to whom they write abstinence from certainspecific sins, and the performance of specific duties, shows

that those who believe in Christ have need of law. Thisgeneral view of the relation of Christians to the law willhelp us to understand what is said by Paul concerning thelaw of the Sabbath. It is plain that no part of the moral lawis abolished. This is still recognized as of binding forceupon all. The law of the Sabbath is a part of it, and anyapostolic precepts which appear hostile to the Sabbathmust be interpreted in the light of this fact. . . .

"Our conclusion is that there is nothing in the writings of the apostles which, when fairly interpreted, implies theabrogation of the Sabbath. . . . They honored the moral lawas the highest expression of God's will, and say no word toindicate that the law of the Sabbath was not a part of it.Thus both Christ and his inspired apostles have given theirsanc- [139] tion to this institution. They have not taken

away this choice gift of God to men."This is sound doctrine. It is true that in speaking of the

law of the Sabbath he uses the qualifying phrase, "so far asit is a moral law;" but as the law of the Sabbath is moral tothe fullest extent; as there is nothing about it that is not




moral, his statement is literally sound. That is, the law of the Sabbath in its widest extent "must remain binding uponall men while the world stands;" and the law of the Sabbathbeing entirely moral, "has never been annulled." There is

more of it that might be quoted, but we have not the spacefor it. Besides, this is all-sufficient to show the universaland unchangeable obligation of the seventh day as theSabbath of the Lord.

And now, in view of the fact that the seventh day is theday which God established as the Sabbath at creation; inview of the fact that the seventh day is the day named by

God in the fourth commandment; in view of the fact thatthe law of the Sabbath "as it appeared in the tencommandments," has never been repealed; in view of thefact that Christ kept, "as an example for us," this identicalday—the seventh day—named at creation and in thedecalogue; in view of the fact that the apostles maintainthat "no part of the moral law is abolished," and that it is

"of binding force upon all;" in view of the fact that God,and Christ, and his inspired apostles, have given theirsanction to this institution, and that in all their words of sanction to the institution there is no reference to [140]

anything but the seventh day as the Sabbath; in view of allthis, we ourselves would give a thousand dollars, if we hadit, to any man who could show, by any process of legitimate reasoning, how Sunday, or any other day but theseventh day, can be the Sabbath.



[141]

CHAPTER II.

"THE CHRISTIAN WORLD MUST STANDCONVICTED OF ERROR."

Having shown that the Sabbath was given "at thebeginning of human history," "for the whole human race,and should be observed by every human being;" havingshown that the law of the Sabbath not only has never been

abrogated, but that it "can never be abrogated ," Mr. Waffleproceeds thus:—

"Accepting the conclusion that the fourth commandmentis still in force, it may very properly be asked, 'Why then donot Christians obey it by keeping holy the seventh day of the week, as it directs? By what right is this plain preceptdisregarded and the first day of the week observed?' This

question is a natural one, and unless a satisfactory answercan be given, the Christian world must stand convicted of error." —P. 184.

Here are some important acknowledgments. It isacknowledged (1) that the fourth commandment "directs"that "the seventh day of the week" shall be kept holy. Thisis important in this connection in view of the claim so oftenmade nowadays by Sunday-keepers that the fourthcommandment does not refer to any particular day. And (2)it is acknowledged [142] that this "plain precept" is"disregarded" by Christians. We think he does well to statethat "unless a satisfactory answer can be given" to thequestion as to why this is, "the Christian world must standconvicted of error." We are perfectly satisfied that theChristian world must stand convicted of error on this

question. And to prove that this is so, we need nothingbetter than Mr. Waffle's one-thousand-dollar-prize essay;and that is the use that we propose to make of it in thischapter.

The fourth commandment, which Mr. Waffle here




admits "directs" that "the seventh day of the week" shall bekept holy, is the law of the Sabbath. Says Mr. Waffle, "Thelaw of the Sabbath can never be abrogated." —P. 157. Nowas the law of the Sabbath directs that the seventh day of the

week shall be kept holy, and as that law can never beabrogated, it is plainly proven that the "Christian world," indisregarding "this plain precept," must stand convicted of error.

Again, Mr. Waffle says:—"Unless it can be shown that the law of the Sabbath,

given at the creation, has been repealed by a new legislative

act of God, it is still binding upon all men who learn of it." —P. 136.

And:—"Up to the time of Christ's death no change had been

made in the day." "The authority must be sought in thewords or in the example of the inspired apostles." —P. 186.

[143]

Then he quotes Matt 16:19, and John 20:23, and says:—"It is generally understood that these words gave to theapostles supreme authority in legislating for the church. . . .So far as the record shows, they did not, however, give anyexplicit command enjoining the abandonment of theseventh-day Sabbath, and its observance on the first day of the week." —P. 187.

Now as "the law of the Sabbath" "is still binding uponall men who learn of it" "unless it has been repealed by anew legislative act of God;" as that law "directs" theobservance of "the seventh day of the week;" as "up to thetime of Christ's death, no change had been made in theday;" as "the authority [for the change] must be sought inthe words or in the example of the inspired apostles," towhom (according to Mr. Waffle's claim) was given

"supreme authority in legislating for the church;" and as inthe exercise of that legislative authority, "they did not give

any explicit command enjoining the abandonment of the

seventh-day Sabbath, and its observance on the first day of the week;" as, therefore, there has been no new legislative



act of God—by Mr. Waffle's own words it stands proven toa demonstration that the law of the Sabbath which enjoinsthe observance of "the seventh day of week" is still bindingupon all men, and that in disregarding "this plain precept"

"the Christian world must stand convicted of error."Again we read:—"If the law of the Sabbath, as it appeared in the [144]

ten commandments, has been abolished, it must have beendone by some decree of Jehovah. Where have we the recordof such a decree? Through what prophet or apostle was itspoken?" "We can find no words of Christ derogatory to

this institution as it was originally established, or as it wasintended to be observed." "There is nothing in the writingsof the apostles which, when fairly interpreted, implies theabrogation of the Sabbath." —Pp. 160, 165, 183.

The law of the Sabbath, "as it appeared in the ten

commandments," is the fourth commandment. And thatcommandment, by Mr. Waffle's own interpretation,

"directs" that "the seventh day of the week" shall be keptholy. Now as the abolition of that commandment wouldrequire some decree of Jehovah; and as no such decree hasever been recorded, nor spoken, neither by prophet nor byapostle, the obligation of the fourth commandment stillremains upon all men to keep holy "the seventh day of theweek." Therefore, in disregarding this "plain precept," "theChristian world must stand convicted of error."e 0144paragraph 3 We must recur to a sentence before quoted.It is this:—

"The authority [for the change from the seventh to thefirst day of the week] must be sought in the words or in theexample of the inspired apostles."

Now with that please read this:—"A law can be repealed only by the same authority that

enacted it. It certainly cannot be done away by those whoare subject to it." —P. 160.

[145] Was the law of the Sabbath enacted by the authority of

the words or the example of the inspired apostles? Was it





conscience to abstain from secular employment on the firstday of the week," his argument leaves not a vestige of authority upon which to rest the observance of the first dayof the week. Thus, again, he demonstrates that in

disregarding the "plain precept" of the fourthcommandment, which "directs" the "keeping holy theseventh day of the week," and which is "still in force," "theChristian world must stand convicted of error."

That is exactly what we have believed for years. It is justwhat we are constantly endeavoring to set before the"Christian world," as well as before the world in general.

And we are thankful that the American Sunday-schoolUnion, by its one-thousand- [147] dollar prize, hasenabled us to lay before our readers such a conclusivedemonstration of it. We are not prepared to say but whatthe Union has done a good work in awarding the one-thousand-dollar prize to the essay of Mr. A. E. Waffle, M.A., Professor of Rhetoric and English Literature, etc., etc.;

for we cannot see how it would be possible to put togetheran argument for the first day of the week which could morepositively convict the Christian world of error indisregarding the plain precept to keep the seventh day.




[148]

CHAPTER III.

SOME ONE-THOUSAND-DOLLAR "REASONS"FOR DISREGARDING THE PLAIN PRECEPT

OF JEHOVAH.

We come now in this one-thousand-dollar-prize essay tothe discussion of the change from the seventh to the first

day of the week in the observance of the Sabbath. It is truethat, as already shown, the author of this essay leaves noroom for any change; nevertheless he insists that there hasbeen a change, and insists on giving "reasons" for it. And asreasons to be worth $1,000 ought to be pretty good, weshall, as far as in us lies, give our readers the full benefit of them. To get a full and fair statement of the question before

us we shall quote again a passage previously referred to, asfollows:—"Accepting the conclusion that the fourth commandment

is still in force, it may very properly be asked, Why then donot Christians obey it by keeping holy the seventh day of the week, as it directs? By what right is this plain preceptdisregarded and the first day of the week observed? Thisquestion is a natural one, and unless a satisfactory answercan be given, the Christian world must stand convicted of error."

Now we are prepared to hear what he proposes [149] shall be the "satisfactory answer," and which we have goodreason to suppose the American Sunday-school Unionconsiders "a satisfactory answer," seeing they paid $1,000for it. Mr. Waffle's first effort at "a satisfactory answer" is

the following:—"The fact that the observance of the first day of the week

is so nearly universal and has been of such longcontinuance is very significant."

That certainly is not a satisfactory answer. In fact, it is



no answer at all. It is simply a begging of the question. Buthe says it is "very significant." Significant of what? Why,this:—

"It suggests that there must have been some good and

sufficient reason for the change." —P. 184. That is to say: The "plain precept" of God has been

disregarded by nearly everybody for a long while; thereforethere must be some good and sufficient reason for it. Inother words: It must be right because nearly everybodydoes it. But he knows that such doctrine as that will neverdo, even in a one-thousand-dollar-prize essay, so he

immediately adds this caution:—"Too much should not be made of this, for the church

has sanctioned many false doctrines and been tainted bymany corrupt practices."

That is the truth. And one of the falsest of her many falsedoctrines, and one of the most corrupt of her many corruptpractices, is the disregard for the "plain precept" of God as

laid down in the fourth commandment, and the substitutionfor it of the ob- [150] servance of the heathen institutionof Sunday, in defense of which Mr. A. E. Waffle writes,and the American Sunday-school Union prints, this essay,which was counted worth a thousand dollars.

His next attempt at a satisfactory answer is this:—"We have taken the custom of keeping the Sabbath on

the first day of the week as we found it; and while this doesnot exempt us from the duty of inquiry, it throws uponthose who question our course 'the burden of proof.'" —P.

185. Can anything be too absurd to find a place in a prize

essay on the Sunday-sabbath? Here is a proposition that iscontrary to the commonest king of common sense, as wellas to the rules of logic and of evidence. Dr. Carson says:

"It is self-evident that in every question the burden of proof lies on the side of the affirmative. An affirmation is of noauthority without proof. It is as if it had not been affirmed.If I assert a doctrine, I must prove it; for until it is proved itcan have no claim to reception. Strictly speaking, it exists








Christ would not burden his church with such a Sabbath asthe rabbis had made; and the easiest way to get rid of theseabuses was to change the day." —P. 190.

The second reason is:—

"The Gentile churches would never have accepted theSabbath of the Jews as they had come to observe it." —Id.

The third reason is:—"Christians were not to observe the Sabbath precisely as

the Jews had kept it before these abuses arose and whilethey were acting in accordance with the divine law." —P.

191.

To take the space to refute such puerile "reasons" asthese, seems to us an imposition upon the good sense andintelligence of our readers. As for the first, if there be anytruth at all in it, we should be obliged to believe that Christchanged almost every precept of God; for there wasscarcely one which the rabbis, [154] the scribes, andPharisees had not made void by their traditions and abuses.

As for the second, it really has no place; for the greatAuthor of Christianity never asked the Gentile churches,nor any other churches, to accept "the Sabbath of the Jews as they had come to observe it ." But he does ask all toaccept the Sabbath of the Lord as he himself observed it ,and as he taught that it should be observed. For this causehe swept away the traditions and abuses that the Jews hadheaped upon it. As for the third, what is said there is, infact, that "Christians were not to observe the Sabbath byacting in accordance with the divine law"(!), which issimply abominable.

But such are the "reasons" for disregarding the plainprecept of Jehovah. It was for such "reasons" as this thatthe American Sunday-school Union, "after a painstakingand protracted examination," paid a prize of $1,000. There

is, however, just one redeeming feature of this subject. Thatis, the author of these "reasons" relieves the apostles of allresponsibility for them. He says:—

"We do not say that the apostles saw these reasons andwere governed by them. We offer them in explanation of



the fact that they were led by the Spirit to make the change,and as suggesting a probability that it would be made." —P.

192. We think Mr. Waffle does well to relieve the apostles

from the folly of any knowledge of these preposterous"reasons." And we are certain that all will do well toremain just as far from seeing and being [155] governedby these "reasons" as were the apostles. In this we have aninstance of "apostolic example" that we can all safelyfollow.

Right here we would insert another important

consideration. It is this: Why should Mr. Waffle search forreasons, or for any example of the apostles for not keepingthe seventh day? He had already written on pages 167-8 of his book (page 137 of this book) that:—

"[Christ] not only maintained the sacredness of theSabbath by his words, but he also kept it as an example for

us."

The only day whose sacredness Christ ever maintainedas the Sabbath was the seventh day. The only day whichChrist ever kept as the Sabbath, "as an example for us" wasthe seventh day of the week. Then why does not Mr. Wafflefollow that example? Why does he pass by the example of Christ and try to create and hold up before men an"example of the apostles" which differs from the exampleof Christ? The fact of the matter is, and this pointconclusively proves it, that in refusing to keep the seventhday of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord, Christians notonly disregard the plain precept of Jehovah, but they alsorepudiate the example of the Lord Jesus Christ.





Christ to honor the first day of the week depends uponoccurrences other than his resurrection, and uponoccurrences after those of that same day. Therefore, if these"subsequent occurrences" should not be what Mr. Waffle

claims, then the fact stands confessed that we have nothingthat implies a purpose of Christ to put honor on the first dayof the week. Now the first of these subsequent occurrenceshe relates as follows:—

"For six days he did not appear to them at all, so far asthe record shows; but 'on the eighth day, or as we shouldsay, on the seventh day afterwards,' he appeared to the

eleven as they were gathered in a closed room." —P. 194. But there is no such record as that he appeared to his

disciples "on the eighth day." The reference here is, of course, to John 20:26, which reads: "And after eight daysagain his disciples were within, and Thomas with them;then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in themidst, and said, Peace be unto [158] you." And when

Inspiration has written "after eight days," we should like toknow by what right, or rule, it is that Mr. Waffle reads "onthe eighth day," and then, not satisfied with that, gives itanother turn and reads, "as we should say on the seventhday afterward." "On what meat doth this our Caesar feedthat he is grown so great" that he can thus boldlymanipulate the words of Inspiration? And what can a causebe worth that can be sustained only by resort to suchunworthy shifts? It is true that Mr. Waffle quotes theclause from Canon Farrar, but we deny the right of CanonFarrar, or any other man, just as much as we deny the rightof Mr. Waffle, to so manipulate the word of God. And it isone of the strongest evidences of the utter weakness of theSunday cause that, to sustain it, such a consummate scholaras Canon Farrar is obliged to change the plain word of God.

But someone may ask: Will not the Greek bear theconstruction that is thus given to the text? We say,emphatically, No. The words exactly as John wrote them,using English letters in place of Greek letters, are these,"Kai meth' hemeras okto," and is, word for word, in





recorded in Acts 20:7 is the only religious meeting everheld on the first day of the week. This, then, being the onesingle instance of the kind, and as "a single instance of thekind" would not make it certain that it was the custom,

therefore it is plainly proved that there is nothing thatwould make it certain that it was the custom for the apostlesto hold meetings on the first day of the week. Well, then, itseems to us that service having for its authority only acustom about which there is nothing certain, is mostcertainly an unsafe foundation upon which to rest thereason for disregarding the plain precept of Jehovah.

Reader, we want something more substantial than that tostand upon when every work shall be brought into theJudgment.

Next Mr. Waffle quotes 1 Cor. 16:2: "Upon the first dayof the week let every one of you lay by him in store," etc.,and says:—

"It is evident that Paul desires them to bring in their

offerings week by week and leave them in the hands of theproper church officers."It is certainly evident that if that is what Paul desires he

took the poorest kind of a way to tell it. Just think of it,Paul desires that Christians shall "bring in their offeringsweek by week and leave them in the hands of the properchurch officers." And so that his desires may be fulfilled,he tells them, "Upon [161] the first day of the week letevery one of you lay by him in store." That is, each one isto lay by him his offerings, by leaving them in the hands of somebody else! And such are the reasons for keepingSunday instead of the Sabbath of the Lord!

"John speaks of this as 'the Lord's day.' He says, 'I wasin the Spirit on the Lord's day.' If he had meant theSabbath, he would have called it by that name. His

expression is analogous to 'the Sabbath of the Lord,' whichwe find in the Old Testament; but it cannot mean the sameday." —P. 199.

And why not, pray? "Analogous" means"correspondent; similar; like." Now if the expression "the




Lord's day" is correspondent to; if it is similar to; if it islike the expression "the Sabbath of the Lord," then why is itthat it cannot mean the same day? Oh, Mr. Waffle's prizeessay says that it cannot, and isn't that enough? Hardly.

Christ said, "The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbathday." The day of which Christ is Lord, and that day alone,is the Lord's day. But the day of which he was speakingwhen he said those words is the seventh day. He had not theslightest reference to any other day. He was speaking of theday which the Pharisees regarded as the Sabbath, whicheverybody knows was the seventh day of the week.

Therefore, when "he said unto them," "The Son of man isLord even of the Sabbath day," it was with sole reference tothe seventh day. God had said, "The [162] seventh day isthe Sabbath of the Lord," and now when, with solereference to the seventh day, Christ says, "The Son of manis Lord of the Sabbath," it shows that the seventh day, andthat alone, is the Lord's day.

Here we shall present a series of syllogisms on thesubject, which will make the point so plain that no personcan fail to see it.

FIRST SYLLOGISM.

"The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." Mark 2:28.

MINOR PREMISE: "The seventh day is the Sabbath."Ex. 20:10.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, the Son of man is Lord of the seventh day.

Just as surely as the Scripture is true so surely is thisconclusion true. Then using this conclusion as a major, weform a

SECOND SYLLOGISM.

MAJOR: The Son of man is Lord of the seventh day.MINOR: The day of which he is Lord is the Lord's day.



CONCLUSION: Therefore, the seventh day is theLord's day.

Now with this conclusion as a major, we form our

THIRD SYLLOGISM.

MAJOR: The seventh day is the Lord's day.MINOR: John says, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's

day." Rev. 1:10.[163] CONCLUSION: John was in the spirit on the seventh

day.If there is any truth in Scripture or logic, these premises

and conclusions are true. Of course the second and thirdsyllogisms are dependent upon the first; but as both themajor and the minor in the first are plain, positivestatements of Scripture, the conclusion is strictly accordingto Scripture. And, we repeat, just as surely as the Scripture

is true the conclusion is true, that the Son of man is Lordalso of the seventh day; that the seventh day, and that dayonly, is the Lord's day; and that John "was in the Spirit" onthe seventh day, the Sabbath of the Lord. Whosoevertherefore would keep the Lord's day must keep the seventhday; for "the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath," and "theseventh day is the Sabbath."




[164]

CHAPTER V.

THE FATHERS AGAIN.

We verily believe that there never was an extendedargument made in favor of the Sunday-sabbath in whichappeal for help was not made to the Fathers, and we neverexpect to see an argument on that subject that does not sodo. The treatise now under consideration is by no means an

exception. We wish that the American Sunday-schoolUnion, or the trustees of Dartmouth College, or whoeverelse may have the management of a prize fund, would offera prize of five hundred or one thousand dollars for an essayon the perpetual obligation of the Sunday-sabbath whichshould make no mention of the Fathers, and no reference toany human authority, but should be confined strictly to the

word of God. Such a production would be worth such aprize as a curiosity in Sunday-sabbath literature, if fornothing else.

To what purpose is a reference to the Fathers anyhow?What is the good of it? Suppose all the Fathers with onevoice should say that Sunday is the Lord's day, that the firstday of the week is the Christian Sabbath; still to the manwho fears God and trembles at his word (and to such alonethe Lord [165] looks, Isa. 66:2) the question would be,What saith the Scripture? To that question there is but oneanswer that ever comes to anybody on this subject. Thatanswer is, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thyGod; in it thou shalt not do any work." The Scripture saidto the Fathers, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lordthy God." If the Fathers disregarded it, they sinned, that is

all. The Scripture says to the American Sunday-schoolUnion, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thyGod." If the American Sunday-school Union disregards it,the Union sins, that is all. The Scripture says to Mr. A. E.Waffle, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy






sanction in their endeavors to make void the commandmentof God by the traditions of men?

The teaching of the apostles is the word of God, and theword of God is light. Apart from the exam- [167] ple of

Christ there is no such thing as "the example of theapostles;" and the example of Christ is but the shining of that Light which came into the world, to which men willnot come because they love darkness rather than light. Andthese men, instead of coming to the true Light, run away off to an age of darkness, to an age of confessed "corruptpractices" and "perversions of Christian doctrine," and

there, by rummaging around among the Fathers, theymanage to find some obscure passages in corrupt texts, andthese are seized upon because they "throw additional light"upon the true Light. They run away into the darkness,where all things look alike, and in groping around therethey find some men to whom they say, You look like us;you talk as we do; you walk as we do; your views of morals

are just like ours; —you are our Fathers, and behold whatgreat light is thrown, by your ways, upon the teaching andexample of the apostles, that is, upon what we are doing.True, the apostles said nothing at all about it, but we aredoing it, and you did it before us, and that is proof that theapostles intended to do it.

We know that between the Fathers and these their sonsthere is a most striking family resemblance. They do look alike; they do talk alike; they walk alike; and their ideas of what constitutes obedience to the word of God, are justalike, and we would be fully justified in saying that they allbelong to the same family, even though the sons should notown it, but when they take every possible occasion toadver- [168] tise it and to parade the Fathers as indeedtheir Fathers, they cannot blame us if we admit it, and do

our best to give them the benefit of the relationship. Buteven though this family resemblance be so perfect that wecan hardly tell the Fathers and their children apart, there isone fatal defect about it all, that is, none of them look like

Christ . Not one of them walks as he walked; for he kept the



seventh day, the Sabbath of the Lord. It matters not howmuch they may resemble one another, the question with usis, Do they resemble Christ? It matters not how closelytheir words may agree among themselves, the question still

is, Do their words agree with the word of God?We have not the disposition, even though we had the

time, to go with Mr. Waffle and the American Sunday-school Union in their one-thousand-dollar excursion intothat age where "perversions of Christian doctrine andcorrupt practices sprang up so early and prevailed sowidely," because Mr. Waffle himself has told us that it is

"altogether unsafe," and, besides that we remember astatement in our Guide-Book, written about just suchexcursions as this, that says: "Be not deceived; evilcommunications corrupt good manners." Moreover, wehave before us the statement of what Mr. Waffle learned byit, and that is enough for us. Here it is:—

"Every statement bearing upon the subject, that can be

discovered in the writings of the Fathers, is to the effectthat the Christians of the first two centuries [169] wereaccustomed to keep holy the first day of the week, and thatmost of them regarded themselves at liberty not to keep theseventh-day Sabbath." —P. 214.

The commandment of God, written with his own fingeron the tables of stone, says: "Remember the Sabbath day,to keep it holy. . . . The seventh day is the Sabbath of theLord thy God." But here we are informed that "everystatement bearing on the subject, that can be discovered inthe writings of the Fathers, is to the effect that the most of them [Christians] regarded themselves at liberty not to keepthe seventh-day Sabbath." But this is simply to say thatthey regarded themselves at liberty not to keep thecommandment of God. Well, we know a great many people

in our own day who regard themselves at liberty to do thesame thing; and, like their Fathers, too, they will callthemselves "Christians," yea, they will even hold that to bethe distinguishing feature of a Christian. The Mormons tooregard "themselves at liberty not to keep the seventh-day




Sabbath," and also not to keep the commandment thatforbids adultery, and they call themselves "saints." Well, if disobedience to that one commandment is what makes aChristian, why should not disobedience to two

commandments make a saint? Will Mr. Waffle or theAmerican Sunday-school Union tell us why?

The commandment of God directs the keeping of theseventh-day Sabbath. The Fathers and Mr. Waffle and otherChristians of that kind "regard [170] themselves atliberty not to keep it." The word of God likewise directsthe keeping of the commandment which says, "Thou shalt

not commit adultery;" the Mormons "regard themselves atliberty not to keep it." The word of God directs the keepingof the second commandment; the Catholics "regardthemselves at liberty not to keep it." The word of Goddirects the keeping of the third commandment; ColonelIngersoll and his kind "regard themselves at liberty not tokeep it." Now upon what principle can these "Christians"

convince those "saints," and Catholics, and atheists, of sin?We should like to see Mr. Waffle frame an argument thatwould show that they are wrong, that would not equallycondemn himself, and all those who with him "regardthemselves at liberty not to keep the seventh-day Sabbath."

Well, when Mr. Waffle finds that the Fathers, and othersof their day, regarded themselves at liberty not to keep thecommandment of God, what does he do? Does he say thatthey were disobedient? Does he repudiate such an exampleand hold to the commandment of God instead? Not he. He just settles down upon the sinful example as though it wererighteousness itself. It is the very thing which he has beenall this time striving to reach—something to strengthen andconfirm him, and others whom he can reach, in their disregard of the commandment. For he says of these

writings of the Fathers:—"Thus they strengthen the conclusion we have reached

from our examination of the example and [171] teachingsof the apostles, that the latter intended to transfer theSabbath from the seventh to the first day." —P. 214.



It never requires a great deal of evidence, nor of a verystrong kind, to strengthen a conclusion we have alreadyreached, especially when we have reached the conclusionwithout evidence. And that such is the way Mr. Waffle has

reached his conclusion is plain by his own words. He hadalready written this:—

"So far as the record shows, they [the apostles] did notgive any explicit command enjoining the abandonment of the seventh-day Sabbath and its observance on the first dayof the week."

If, then, the apostles gave no command for it, the

conclusion which he has reached is, so far as the teaching of the apostles goes, totally without evidence. And as hehas said that "the authority must be sought in the words orin the example of the inspired apostles," when he admitsthat there is no command for it, he has nothing at all left butwhat he calls the example of the apostles, upon which tobase his conclusion. And upon this we would remind him

of his own words, that "the average mind is more readilymoved by a direct command than by an inference drawnfrom the example of even inspired men." —P. 242. He hasreached his conclusion, then, by an inference drawn fromthe example of the apostles. But how does he know andhow can he show that his inference is just? Oh, by studyingthe history of an age of "corrupt practices and perversionsof Christian doctrine," he [172] learns "that the most of them regarded themselves at liberty not to keep theseventh-day Sabbath," and that they "could hardly have

made a mistake concerning the import of their [theapostles'] words and actions." And so having landedhimself and his whole Sunday-sabbath scheme squarelyupon Catholic ground in the midst of an age of "corruptpractices" and perversions of Christian doctrine, his great

one-thousand-dollar task is completed; his grand one-thousand-dollar prize is won, and there we leave him toenjoy it.

We have now examined the reasons for keeping Sundaywhich have been given in a five-hundred-dollar-prize essay,



and in a one-thousand-dollar-prize essay. We have beenasked which is the better one of the essays. We can onlyreply that there is no "better" about it—each is worse thanthe other. Yet we are not prepared to say that the trustees of

Dartmouth College, and the American Sunday-schoolUnion, have done a wholly bad work in paying the prizesby which these essays were put before the world. We arecertainly justified in supposing that these essays furnish thevery best argument for Sunday-keeping that can be made inthe United States; and we think it well that the uttergroundlessness of the Sunday institution either in Scripture

or reason, should be made to appear, as is done in theseessays, even though it be at an expense of $1,500. Yet itdoes seem a pity to pay so much good money for so manybad arguments, in support of a worthless institution.

[173] The commandment of God reads the same to us that it

does to these prize essayists and to everybody else. It says

to all: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. . . .The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Andfor our part we hope we shall never reach the point wherewe shall regard ourselves at liberty not to keep thecommandment of God, for to keep the seventh-day Sabbathis the commandment of God. He who regards himself atlib k i d hi lf lib i

Documents

A. T. Jones (1888)_Abiding-Sabbath and the Lords Day